A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8

[Liberal_in_LA]

A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez14-2008dec14,0,5995847.column


--------------------

She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of "for" and "against" donors. And El Coyote became a target.

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting "shame on you" at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

The mob left, but so did the customers.

Sections of the restaurant have been closed, a manager told me Friday during a very quiet lunch hour. Some of the 89 employees, many of them gay, have had their hours cut, and layoffs are looming. And Christoffersen, who has taken a voluntary leave of absence, is wondering whether she'll ever again be able to work at the restaurant, which opened in 1931 (at 1st and La Brea) and is owned by her 92-year-old mother.

"It's been so hard," she said, breaking down again.

-----------------

Margie tried to smooth things over last month by inviting gay clients to a free lunch to talk it over, but she left in tears when asked if she would write a check to the group challenging Prop. 8.

[BlueJazz]

1. She certainly used poor judgment in donating the money, when she...

..knew her workers and clientele were mainly Gay.

Not very Smart , Lady....

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. What the hell was she thinking?

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. She didn't think her clientele would ever know about the donation.

[WeDidIt]

50. She fucked up then, didn't she?

The law is the law and donations to ballot initiatives in California are a matter of public record.

[slackmaster]

266. She probably believes, as do a lot of people, that being gay is the result of a deliberate choice

She needs to be educated. Destroying her business is not going to accomplish that.

[yardwork]

440. On the contrary, it appears to be the only way to get through to her.

If "education" were all that was needed, I would think that decades of working with a gay clientele would have been enough. Apparently Margie and her supporters need a more direct object lesson in supply and demand: If your clientele is largely made up of gay people and supporters of civil rights, don't contribute to efforts stripping civil rights from gay people.

Many businesses in the south learned this lesson the hard way, which is why they no longer exist. I'm Anglo, but I wouldn't dream of patronizing a business that discriminated against black people. That's the only reason that many businesses in the south stopped discriminating.

[yurbud]

465. that restaurant is not far from West Hollywood, a gay community and probably has

a lot of gay clientele.

If you were black and found out someone who worked at your favorite restaurant gave money to the klan, you'd be less inclined to eat there too.

[Doremus]

3. She has the right to her pesonal beliefs but opponents don't have the right to theirs?

I have little sympathy for someone whose personal beliefs are only relevant when they aren't detrimental to business.

Willing to profit from the same people she'd like to throw under the bus = a creep of the first order. She has no one to blame but herself for this "turmoil" -- she and her own ambiguous moral code.

[Greyhound]

4. I'm torn on this particular scene. On one hand, My comrades and I met at El Coyote

every Friday night for well over a decade and know and love the people that work there (hey, Donna and Larry and Armando, I've really missed you guys), on the other hand Prop. 8 is an obscenity.

It is such a great little LA watering hole, the food is cheap, if not the best, and the drinks are marvelous (for those of you in LA, ask for a "Don Armando" if you happen to stop in and like tequila). The staff seemed to me to be mostly devout Catholics, so either the article gives a false impression of the staff or things have greatly changed.

I had no idea, OTOH, that Margie is Mormon and while she was a little more distant the other people that worked there, was always very friendly and took very good care of us.

Many, many weeks, it was the decompression of Friday night at the Coyote that kept me relatively sane.

[HillbillyBob]

6. Why did she donate to push prop 8? if she had gay employees

she would have known at least something about it.
My life has been thrown in turmoil over and over again because of being gay. I am ont for a long time now, but long ago I tried to keep a low profile, but would get questioned because I did not have a wife or girlfriend, did not act like a dog towards good looking women that walked by the construction sites I would be working at.
I mean I was not closeted but I did not discuss either. I don't even remember how many jobs I was fired from.
Then there is the murder attempts, harassment and vandalism to my car home what have you.
I was even let go for being HIV pos (as in possibly pos).
Well later on I was pos and a manager for a chain restaurant I worked for went into my personnel files (which she was not supposed to have access to) and found that out and made up a fake reason that I had upset a customer. What had happened was an underage guy wanted booze and I would not serve him. In losing that job I was virtually homeless for 2 years because I was already sick and working just enough to keep a roof over me. When I lost that job I had no help, and with out an address could not get medicaid, ssi or even food stamps I had to be brought in to the ER sick before I got help.. Thanks to some friends I was not completely out in the cold..just most of the time.
I am sorry she is having a bad time, but as several folks have said to me in the past.
Payback is a B__h. Gay folks have gotten screwed over to the point where our attitudes is "you mess me up I take revenge". It ain't pretty, but it is truth.

[mr1956]

7. You reap what you sow

Her beliefs and her vote could have remained a private matter. By actively supporting Proposition 8 through her donation she may have gotten kudos from her church, but Margie definitely deserves the resulting backlash.

[enough already]

8. Serves her right

Nazi hate mongers.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. That's nothing Margie. Try THIS for turmoil.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x408911

[bliss_eternal]

218. ...................

:cry::grr::mad::cry:

[terrya]

10. She got exactly what she deserved.

What the fuck is it with these people so shocked about the reaction from the gay community over the passage of Prop 8? Did they think we'd just say "oh, well" and that would be that?

[hfojvt]

126. I wonder if all the supporters on this thread also support those tactics

if they are used by the other side? I have seen it happen in Kansas. Before Kansas had its vote on the marriage amendment a college professor wrote an article against the marriage amendment. Following that, there were multiple LTTEs demanding that he get fired from his job. After all, he works for a Catholic University.

Is it really part of the democratic tradition to personally attack people who vote for the other side or publicly or semi-privately support the other side. Is it okay then, for a Republican boss to fire a worker who has an Obama yard sign? Or worse yet, somebody with the audacity to donate to Obama?

[ZombieHorde]

130. Boycotts and protests, yes many here support those tactics.

Including myself.

Is it really part of the democratic tradition to personally attack people who vote for the other side or publicly or semi-privately support the other side. Is it okay then, for a Republican boss to fire a worker who has an Obama yard sign? Or worse yet, somebody with the audacity to donate to Obama?

Why would you compare boycotts and protests to these activities? Seems like your building a strawman.

[hfojvt]

138. How is that a strawman?

I have a yard sign for Obama. Thus Republicans can boycott or protest at the business where I work or manage and the owner fires me. The bottom line is that somebody is losing their livelihood for their political views.

[ZombieHorde]

141. Your argument and the situation do not go together.

Is it really part of the democratic tradition to personally attack people who vote for the other side or publicly or semi-privately support the other side.

They are boycotting and protesting her family owned businesses because she is a bigot, not because she is a republican.

Is it okay then, for a Republican boss to fire a worker who has an Obama yard sign? Or worse yet, somebody with the audacity to donate to Obama?

They are protesting and boycotting a business, they are not firing anybody. This is not a McCain/Obama thing, this is a bigotry thing.

[hfojvt]

180. it's an election thing

This person made a donation for a ballot issue, something that was voted on. If it's okay for people to lose their livelihood over one thing on the ballot, then why not over all things? Closing a business, is not materially different that a firing. In fact, it is likely to be even more expensive to close a business, and it affects the livelihood of more than one person.

[EstimatedProphet]

135. Not the same thing

Boycotting and protesting a restaurant aren't the same thing as demanding a university fire someone for their beliefs. A restaurant is a business, and people are free to choose what businesses they will support, whatever their reasons. People are also free to express their opinions about how that business operates. A university, even a Catholic one, is a public institution.

[hfojvt]

139. so it would be okay in the eyes of DU

If I worked at Sears and wrote an LTTE against the marriage amendment in Kansas or donated to a group trying to stop it, and then Republicans boycotted and protested at Sears. Either way, somebody is being personally attacked and their livelihood threatened because some group doesn't like their political views/donations.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

145. Were you against the Montgomery Bus Boycott too?

Can you understand the difference between being a bigot, and not being a bigot?

It's not that complicated.

[hfojvt]

176. I think it is that complicated

otherwise we are going with a with us or against us on this issue. Bigots and non-bigots. No shades of gray.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was not about a ballot measure or voting. It wasn't because a bus driver had made a $5 donation to the "No on Brown v. Board" ballot issue. It was about changing a business's practices, not their political views.

[racaulk]

179. You're comparing apples to oranges.

There's a huge difference between being one employee in a huge multinational corporation like Sears, and being a co-owner of a small business like El Coyote.

When you're a single employee of Sears, then no, your political beliefs and donations are not reflective of those of the organization.

When you're a co-owner of a small business like El Coyote, then yes, your political beliefs and donations are reflective of those of the organization...insofar as the stakeholders of your organization perceive that they are. That's because, by and large, you ARE the organization in the eyes of your customer. When you become the face of your organization and you are as visible as Christoffersen has been at El Coyote for the last 20 years, then you and the organization become largely indistinguishable from one another.

THAT is why her donation is so relevant to her business, and why your comparison to being an employee at Sears is not applicable.

There's also a huge difference between making a monetary donation to an anti-marriage amendment, and writing a LTTE expressing support for the same.

[hfojvt]

188. my analogy was to somebody losing their job over their political activities

Whether they are self employed or not. I tend to write more LTTEs than I make donations, so that's why I used LTTEs and plus the attacks here on that Professor I thought were way out of line.

Heck, a donation is typically less public than an LTTE. LTTEs have my name attached to them. Everybody who reads them knows that I wrote them. On the other hand, very few people have access to the information about my donations to Obama or (gasp) Tammy Baldwin.

So I can make a closer comparison. Back when I had my own bookstore in Wisconsin, it would be okay for homophobes to boycott me and shut my store down if they found out I donated to Tammy Baldwin (who is gay (although ironically, Steve Gunderson, a previous Congressperson for that town, was also gay, but he was a Republican and I think I heard that Tammy's first opponent, Jo(Ann) Musser, was also gay.))

Probably again not an exact analogy, but one I went for because a) I have owned a bookstore and b) I have donated to Tammy (although not at the same time). I made the first analogy because that actually happened here. Guy wrote a letter and people wrote back saying not so much "he is wrong" but "he should lose his job" and they both seem similar attempts to silence/squelch opinions that are different.

[mdmc]

194. what do you think would happen if I showed my support for union labor

in an open public way?

I'd be fired.

I know the risks...

[Crunchy Frog]

223. I don't have a problem with those tactics...

when used by a group for whom the legislation in question attacks their basic rights. This is not the same thing as a simple difference of opinion. It is an attack aimed at taking away the rights of a particular minority group. I'd expect the same behavior from Mormons if people were supporting legislation to ban Mormonism.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

235. protests and not wanting to spend money on bigots is called free speech. nt

[NashVegas]

249. Actually - Yes

My company (small business) lost a $25k per year contract when the potential client found out we aren't a Christian company.

It happens all. The. Freaking. Time. People who don't spend anytime in the bible belt would be shocked to find out how much business networking goes on in "praise Jebus" circles.

[AntiFascist]

297. How do you get from choosing to fire someone....

to boycotting a business? Those are two entirely separate issues. Employees are protected from certain types of discriminaton, but choosing whether or not to do business with someone is entirely up to the clientele. Also,the professor should have known that he was possibly facing retribution, particularly working for a Catholic university. The customers of El Coyote are smart enough to decide for themselves whether or not the restaurant is being treated fairly, and many of them have decided to actively protest it. When it comes to people choosing to use their wealth to oppress others, even on such a small scale as this restaurant owner, we shouldn't just sit idly by and hope that the political process will eventually make things right.

[Zhade]

314. Uh, it's not just "voting for the other side" -- it's supporting the stripping away of our rights.

Don't even try to fucking equate the two positions.

[snake in the grass]

372. I can't speak for everyone on DU...

...but I think this is legitimate and much better than taking the beating lying down before getting back up and letting bygones be bygones. I'm sick of the over-abstracting that constantly goes on in the Democratic Party with the result that we continually get our teeth kicked in. Then we ask for more. It would be an utter perversion to continue to patron her restaurant and I support those who were attacked through Prop 8 and are fighting back. Perhaps some people can be made to see the error of their ways through discussion. Those who do not should be made to get with the programme or crawl back under their fucking rocks.

[Rabrrrrrr]

395. Yes, in fact, I do. The right to protest and boycott is an important right,

and the power to protest and boycott is an important power to exercise.

If a business is making political donations, and you don't like where those donations are going, OF COURSE you have not only a right, but one could argue a responsibility, to let other people know AND to boycott them so that your money is not any of the money going to their cause.

[Political Heretic]

407. Uh, yes... I would still support free speech and freedom of assembly.... wouldn't you?

[dysfunctional press]

160. and so did/will all of her employees...right?

nt

[Orsino]

245. Not yet. She's still married. n/t

[mondo joe]

11. If that's turmoil, what is having your marriage rendered void by popular vote?

?

[Coyote_Bandit]

12. Small business owners

are advised to keep their damn mouth shut, not to make political donations and to refrain from displaying campaign material. Same recommendation is applicable with respect to church and religious materials.

Many folks are more interested in winning than in respecting the business owners right to hold a particular view with which they disagree. Most small business owners do not have the resources to withstand the retaliatory actions that can be taken against them by folks with differing opinions.

This is particularly true for red businesses in blue states and vice versa - for blue businesses in red states.

Also, such political or religious activism typically does little to advance the business itself - and if it does it is often very temporary and short term in nature.

[yardwork]

33. Excuse me, but no business has the RIGHT to my money.

I have to choose where to spend my money, and so does everybody else. No business has the right to anybody's money. As a lesbian, why would I spend my money at a business that has helped take away my human rights, while ignoring the businesses of people who help human rights?

Retaliatory actions? Customers have the right to choose where to spend their money.

[mondo joe]

40. Isn't it remarkable that some expect us to subsidize bigotry against us, as if we're

spending cogs in a business plan rather than individuals making choices?

[Coyote_Bandit]

45. If that's what you think

Then you missed my point.

I was pointing out how the decision to make the contribution served absolutely no business purpose.

As a self employed liberal who lives in red state hell I have ample experience with business reprisals for speaking out or contributing to liberal causes. I don't do it because I expect to lose clients when I do. This resturant owner should have considered that such a thing was likely. She didn't. And there was no business purpose served by her contribution.

[mondo joe]

47. If I missed the point of *this* maybe you could explain it for me:

"Many folks are more interested in winning than in respecting the business owners right to hold a particular view with which they disagree."

What does my respect for a business owner holding a view have to do with my choice to support his or her business?

[Coyote_Bandit]

53. My comment

spoke generally about matters of both politics and religion. You apparently are applying it to only he single issue of gay marriage which is being discussed in this thread.

If you can't respect someone else right to disagree with your political or religious views then you are a bigot.

THe definition of "bigot" from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

[mondo joe]

56. I still don't understand how you're confusing respecting the right to disagree with

my consumer spending.

I respect everyone's right to disagree. That right should be protected, and government should not infringe on it.

What does that have to do with choosing where to put my spending?

[Coyote_Bandit]

74. Is the purchasing decision

based exclusively on the business services and products rendered? Or is it retaliatory?

If it is retaliatory then it is a form of reprisal and retribution - withholding the purchase of goods and services because of an offense (something that violates, irritates, angers, annoys or causes pain). Respect has to do with holding someone or something in esteem or honor or deference.

Customers are certainly allowed to spend whatever money they have wherever they damn well please. However, customers who choose not to patronize businesses because of the political or religious activism of the business/business owner generally do so because they are offended by the agenda. That offense suggests a belief that the business has violated legal, moral or social expectations. Most of us do not esteem, honor or defer to those who violate these expectations. Instead we prefer to buy blue or boycott Wal-Mart - or the restaurant in question here.

Isn't it obvious that the restaurant owner offended her customers? Isn't it obvious that the customers are no longer patronizing her because of that offense rather than a business reason related to the services and products offered?

Customers may say that they respect the right of a business owner to disagree with their particular views. However, when the views of that business owner offends those customers then some are likely to withdraw their patronage simply because of those views. And the fact that that consumer decision may be based on something other than business and financial considerations suggests that those consumers consider much more than the nature, price and quality of the goods and services offered when making purchasing decisions.

Which gets back to my original point - probably nobody much gave a damn what this particular restaurant owner thought until she made it an issue by supporting an agenda by making a contribution. There would have been no evidence to support the reprisals and loss of customers had there been no contribution and had no one known her position regarding the issue.

[mondo joe]

82. Neither. I don't want to subsidize certain practices with my discretionary $.

Refusing to subsidize someone else's choices doesn't mean I don't respect their right to make those choices. It means I'm not participating or enabling them.

You are mistaking respect for someone's RIGHT to an opinion with supporting them in their opinion.

[Coyote_Bandit]

96. I don't

give a damn if you burn every dollar you have. And I certainly do not care where you spend it. Or if you spend it.

However, IMHO it is absolutely fucking stupid for a business owner to endorse or fund political or religious agendas or candidates. And that is true whether they are endorsing liberal or conservative agendas. Or whether they are for or against gay marriage.

Why? Because as this thread proves there are folks who get bent out of shape and spend their dollars elsewhere. Doesn't mean those folks can't or shouldn't. It means the business owner was so fucking stupid that they actually gave customers (and potential customers) a completely non-business related reason to spend that money elsewhere. NOTE: I AM TALKING ABOUT THE STUPIDITY OF THE BUSINESS OWNER NOT THE RIGHT OF THE CUSTOMER TO CHOOSE.

It is entirely possible to allow someone to exercise their right to hold an opinion and to concurrently disrespect that person because of their opinion. That is especially true if one understands that the word respect often suggests esteem, deference, honor or otherwise conferring a sense of favor, worth or courtesy. Rights, on the other hand, have to do with just claims and legal guarantees. You don't have to take my word for it. Look it up in the dictionary.

Want an example? You have the right (and ability) to add me to your ignore list. Whether you chose to do so or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I respect you - or your opinion - or your choice regarding whether or not to add me to that ignore list. Allowing someone to exercise the right to hold an opinion is something very different from respecting that person because of - or perhaps in spite of - that opinion. The two are not the same. FWIW, I have a lot of respect for folks who are able to disagree civilly and to put forth an argument supported by evidence.

I think it is pretty clear what happened here. This restaurant had customers who supported gay marriage and had little tolerance or respect for those who did not viewing them as bigots. The restaurant owner was stupid enough to make a financial contribution to oppose gay marriage and to let her views be made known. So far as I know, the customers have done nothing to indicate that they do not wish for the restaurant owner to be able to exercise her right to make that contribution or to hold that opinion. Instead customers have responded in a manner that indicates they do not esteem, honor, defer to or otherwise confer a sense of favor, worth or courtesy toward a person or entity advancing such an agenda. Nothing wrong with that. Customers certainly have the right to show their disrespect. And they typically do so by patronizing competitors.

In any event, you don't like my opinion and I don't agree with you. I would think that should be apparent by now. I really see no further cause to continue this exchange.

Peace.

[mondo joe]

98. I'm not trying to convince you.

And I understand what you're saying about the stupidity of the business owner.

I am also, however, addressing one point you made, which I consider to be a grievous error.

[yardwork]

108. You still haven't explained your nasty comment about gay people "caring only about winning."

[Coyote_Bandit]

114. I

am not obligated to defend my statement or provide an explanation.

If you were familiar with my commentary on DU over the years you would know that I think that desire to prevail, win and dominate is one of the characteristics of our society - liberal and conservative - gay and straight. You ***ASSUMED*** that comment was directed toward and limited to only gay people. It wasn't.

If you followed my commentary here on DU you would also know that I have complained many times about our national loss of a sense of community. For most people in our society everything is all about winning. We want what we want and to hell with how that affects anyone else. We ridicule compromise and view it as a sign of weakness rather than using it as a tool to accomplish the very pragmatic functions of government.

[yardwork]

117. Oh bullshit.

[Coyote_Bandit]

120. Whatever.....

You don't have to believe me. But before you call bullshit you really should use the search feature to check and see if I have a history of making the comments I claim. You obviously didn't try too hard to make that effort.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

151. It's not about winning as you say

It's about a group of people having the same rights that other people have. If you think that is about "winning" or scoring points you are lost and delusional.

[Zhade]

322. If you think wanting our deserved equal rights is "We want what we want"...

...I don't know what to say to you.

[yardwork]

445. Say that they are correct. We want civil rights. That's what we want.

Very clear. Succinct. To the point.

[guardian]

307. Huh? That's asinine

>>>it is absolutely fucking stupid for a business owner to
>>>endorse or fund political or religious agendas or candidates.

So it's stupid for a business owner to donate to the Obama campaign or to the DNC??

I do sense something "fucking stupid" here. So you think it's okay for a bunch of fundies to shut down some restaurant because the owner donated $100 to Obama???

Give me a break.

[riqster]

355. As a business person, I'll weigh in:

"So you think it's okay for a bunch of fundies to shut down some restaurant because the owner donated $100 to Obama???"

Yep. And those who support Obama can eat at that restaurant so as to show their support. We make our purchasing decisions for lots of reasons. Voting with our wallets is a perfectly viable course of action.


I myself do not patronize Fundie-owned businesses, because in many cases (at least in my area) their tithes go to political activities that attempt to impose unconstitutional religious laws on the rest of us. Why help them take my rights away?

[guardian]

483. How about if they are

JEWS? Maybe you can paint a Star of David on the business store front too.

It's one thing not to patronize an establishment. It's another to try and ruin a business or intimidate or harm a law abiding citizen/business, just because they believe differently.

[riqster]

484. It would be vandalism to deface their premises, for one thing

Personally, I simply do not patronize Fundy businesses, I don't organize public shamings or boycotts. I simply vote with my wallet.

Having said that, if an establishment behaves in a fashion that is offensive to a group, that group has the right to let that offense be known and to act in a manner designed to change the offensive behavior. The best example that I can think of off the top of my head would be the boycotts of segregationist businesses and entities in the South during the 60's.

Would you say that Blacks had no right to boycott bus lines, grocery stores, restaurants et.al.? Or that they were wrong to protest the discriminatory behavior they were enduring?

[Zhade]

321. "withholding the purchase of goods and services" -- um, no business is entitled to our money.

You seem to be arguing that not underwriting our own second-class citizenship is a BAD thing.

[mondo joe]

350. Precisely. The worldview seems to be that these businesses have a right to our $

and if we choose not to spend there we are infringing on their right.

[yardwork]

448. The privileged are waking up to discover that we are no longer cowed.

We're out of the closet. We're here and we're queer and we're making spending decisions.

[snake in the grass]

392. Hating bigots is bigotry!

Don't you get it?

The progressive thing to do would be to continue to patron this restaurant and indirectly fund future campaigns against equal rights for gays. Better yet, why use the middle man? I think we should all donate directly to Prop 8's future incarnation just to show how much better we are.

Even better, we should all just kill ourselves so that we won't be a problem anymore for all those upstanding, church-going troglodytes!

[yardwork]

104. Nice dodge. You accused gay people and their supporters of "caring only about winning."

Personally, I think that the responses to your nasty comment here have been kind and very restrained. You're lucky they weren't worse. You're way out of line.

[mondo joe]

105. Thank you. I don't like to be told I don't respect the *right* to disagree just because

I don't want to *fund* it.

I respect free speech and the right to disagree. But don't fucking expect ME to pay for OTHERS to do it.

[yardwork]

107. It's obvious that the boycotts are working. It's causing hysteria among the targets.

[hfojvt]

153. not really. The original comment was about business, politics and religion

Not specific to gays or this issue. Presumably, however, we all hold to certain principles.
1. People have a right to vote for the candidate of their choice and for the position of their choice.
2. They have a right to support their side with donations, activity, statements, letters, and with signs etc.

Well, when you boycott because of the above, that does show that you care more about winning (this election or this ballot proposal) than you do about their rights to be on the other side. If the shoe was reversed and mormons and fundies were boycotting and protesting people who had donated to "no on 8" after Prop 8 had been defeated, how would we feel about that?

This is different, IMO, from 'Buy Blue' campaigns because the annoying thing about corporate donations is that they have power. With a $100,000 donation they can trump any small donation or activity from an individual and so the individual thinks "why did I help to give them that power?" It's harder to say the same thing about a $100 donation.

[Caliman73]

305. I think that defining the issue in terms of "winning" demeans the issue

Whether it is the "Buy Blue" campaign which is trying to ensure that workers are receiving good wages buy encouraging people to by Union manufactured products, or the Montgomery Bus Boycott which sought to show that segregation was not going to be supported, or the protests and boycotts against those who supported Prop 8... Saying that "winning" is most important is misleading and demeaning to those who hold the belief that they are being denied a right, whatever that right may be. All of the above actions are not about "winning for winning's sake". They are about protecting livelihood, ending racial segregation, and discrimination based on sexual orientation. I seriously doubt anyone in the 3 movements above were out there saying, "You know what, I really don't care about the principle argument of the cause, I just want to WIN. I really could care less if Unions can fight for workers rights, or if Black people have access to the same facilities as Whites, or if GLBT people can marry, I just care about seeing a win next to our name in the paper". That is what I get from the statement, "winning is more important".

It has nothing to do with dollar amounts for donations. It has to do with whether you support the views of the business you are supporting with your money. You can choose to support or boycott ANY business for ANY reason. It is up to the individuals that are spending to the money to determine that, whether it is cause a person is religious or not, supports military action or not, etc... Perhaps the owner of the restaurant did not know that her contribution amount was going to be public record. It is her responsibility to inform herself and make that appropriate choice based on her priorities. Just because you have a right to support or say anything in a Democracy does not mean that those views don't exact a consequence. I do not support the active disruption of someone's business by blocking patrons, harassment, or violent means, but I think that letting people know that a business owner supports a particular view and allowing patrons to choose in a peaceful manner whether to support that business is a legitimate expression.

[mondo joe]

317. Bullshit. The right of others to disasgree does NOT translate into the right to my spending.

It simply doesn't.

You can disagree. You have the right. That doesn't mean you have the right to disagree without affecting others' spending.

[Zhade]

323. That's such fucking BULLSHIT. This isn't a case of differing opinions.

This is a case of a majority supporting the movement to strip away minority rights and make us second-class citizens.

You're equating those who fight against bigotry with bigots. Your comments are way off the mark.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

373. Bad comparison.

Voting No on 8 would not have stripped Fundies or Mormons of their civil rights -- it would simply be a rejection of their narrow-minded views.

[yardwork]

106. I don't respect people who take away others' civil rights.

I don't respect Holocaust deniers. I don't respect members of the Ku Klux Klan. I don't respect members of the U.S. Supreme Court who vote against people's rights.

If you think the definition of bigotry is disrespecting bigots, then you're living in a hall of mirrors. I suspect it may be because you occupy a position of privilege, making the concept of struggles for rights an abstract issue that you can toy with in a dispassionate manner, while judging those who are being discriminated against.

[Coyote_Bandit]

43. You are correct

No business has a right to your money. And a smart business owner will not do anything to offend you.
Which is why they will keep their mouth (and pocketbook) shut on matters pertaining to politics and religion and not advocate for or against any agenda.

When a customer chooses not to support a business because of a position which the owner has taken then their choice is one that is made to retaliate for that stated position. It happens all the time. And it is retaliatory because it is a method of retribution. You don't like that the restaurant owner opposed gay marriage so you responded by withholding your business from her. Withholding business is a form of reprisal. And it likely is an action that would not have been taken had the business owner had the good sense to keep her stupid mouth shut and to not participate in advocating a political or religious agenda.

I'm not suggesting it is wrong to withhold business from this particular business. I'm pointing out how incredibly short sighted the contribution was and how it served no business purpose whatsoever.

[yardwork]

109. This is about human rights, not a minor disagreement involving politics or religion.

Don't pretend that this is all about a difference of political or religious opinion.

The people of California had a right to get married. Thousands of gay people had exercised that right, and then a bunch of people came along and initiated and funded a campaign to take away that right from a minority. They succeeded.

Which right would you like to give up tomorrow on the basis of a majority up-down vote? Maybe if you lost a right you used to have, you'd see how this issue involves more than semantics and the concept of "winning and losing."

[closeupready]

54. Amen, sister.

:hi:

[bluedawg12]

72. The coward quit because she got found out.

It was OK for her to take gay money from customers, to use that money to pass an anti-gay civil rights initiative, it was all OK when she thought no one would know - well then, she should stand behind her principles now.

She quit because the gay community stood up and fought back - she was found out and of course money talks and her ethics walked. Cow-ard!

The message is simple: being is bigot is a right - but a costly right.

[yardwork]

110. Bingo. And if her Mormon beliefs are so important to her, why run a business that serves alcohol?

Restaurants make their money on the bar tabs, not food. Mormon doctrine teaches that it's against their religion to drink, but this woman - one of the owners of the business - has no problem making her money off serving alcohol.

It's only when her church called on her to take rights away from an already oppressed minority that she had the "courage" to follow church teachings. Hypocrite.

[Selatius]

328. You've just shown she is a not just a bigot but a hypocrite on top of that.

:thumbsup:

[gollygee]

37. Capitalism at work

They choose where to put their money, and we choose where to put our money.

[Coyote_Bandit]

49. Exactly

which is why the contribution should not have been made - and why the woman should have kept her mouth shut.

[mondo joe]

39. Respecting her right to a differing opinion does not = entitlement to our spending.

No business owner is entitled to anyone's spending dollar.

Ever.

I respect her right to a political opinion I disagree with. And I respect my right as a consumer to spend in ways I choose - not in the way others prefer I spend.

[Coyote_Bandit]

55. You are looking out a different window

You are talking about your rights as a consumer. Damn right you can spend whatever money you have wherever you want.

I am talking about the lack of wisdom and foresight of a particular business owner. If a business owner offends their clients and customers then they go away. Simple. Which is exzactly why small business owners should keep their money and their opinions on politics and religion to themselves. They are not obligated to make those opinions known and when they do they risk alientating customers and losing their business.

[mondo joe]

58. Regardless, choosing to not subsidize someone's disagreement is NOT the same as

not respecting their right to disagree.

[bluedawg12]

66. When a business owner works actively against the civil right of one group

then don't expect financial support from that group.

BTW - if she is so keen on her beliefs, then, she should not have resigned and stood by her choice even as revenues drop.

[gollygee]

67. Or she at least should have taken the out her clients gave her

Margie tried to smooth things over last month by inviting gay clients to a free lunch to talk it over, but she left in tears when asked if she would write a check to the group challenging Prop. 8.

That's nicer than I would have been. I wouldn't have given another chance to show she isn't a bigot. But she wasn't willing to even take that small step they asked for. I can't imagine why they'd keep going to her restaurant after she refused that.

[qwlauren35]

122. Reading that again, I conclude that the woman is Extremely Ignorant.

Ignorant might not be the right word. Naive? Ostrich/Head-in-sand? Oblivious?

I don't think she was able to make the connection between expressing/funding a religious belief, and the likelihood of losing clientele.

Otherwise, she would not have had the luncheon, in which she basically said: "I don't think you should have the right to marry, but I'd like you to continue to patronize my business, and not see my personal views as a reason to boycott me."

I feel sorry for her. She really, truly doesn't get it.

I can imagine a similiar situation if a restaurant in the South that served great food to "Negroes"... in the rear of the building, got upset when the restaurant was boycotted, and actually asked the black town representatives to meet for a free lunch... in the rear of the building... to discuss it.

There's a word to describe such a person; it just won't come to me.

"Dumb" just scratches the surface.

:banghead:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

174. I really hope the restaurant goes bankrupt, and other restaurants pick up clientele and employees.

[TexasObserver]

212. That proved she's a bigot who thinks SHE is the victim.

What next? Some KKK member with a fast food outlet complaining because blacks stop coming when they found out?

[Coyote_Bandit]

79. Which again

means that the woman should not have made the contribution and should have kept her damn mouth shut.

My point isn't that there is anything wrong with withholding busiess from this woman and her resturant.

My point is that she made a really short sighted stupid business decision.

As a self employed liberal living in red state hell I have had ample opportunity to reap my own retribution for speaking out and supporting liberal candidates and causes. I choose not to offend the clients I want to keep.

[bluedawg12]

116. Exactly. She did make a terrible business decision.

That's why there is an economic business boycott and why it is justified.

This is not unique, as you said, they play hardball in red States when businesses are openly liberal.

She is not just some private individual, yet now, she wants it three ways:

-->To be the face of the business.

-->To support anti-civil rights legislation.

AND

-->To play the victim as some private individual who happens to be singled out at her place of work.

That's the falsehood: she wants to represent the business -which her family owns - and then when caught at her game she is pretending to be just another worker caught up in this.

Do you know, not only does she continue her proHate8 battle, but, the workers in her business chipped in to donate $500 for Equality California - the workers-not her!

The manager had offered a $50 as STFU money.

"Manager Larry Crenshaw gave $50 to "try to smooth things over" and counter the boycott... We're just kind of dealing with it, and we're hoping it will blow over," Crenshaw said. "We're hoping this will ease things, but it seems like they want a personal apology or a donation made by Margie to kind of equal what she made . . . and she has refused because it's her own personal belief."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-elcoyote15-2008nov15,0,6294928.story

[yardwork]

113. She should have the courage of her convictions.

After all, saints were martyrs for her cause. She just wants to do hateful things without getting called on them.

[bluedawg12]

118. Yup, does hateful things and then cries victim to the press for weeks

geez, she should just stand up for her beliefs and keep losing business, or is gay bashing some cavalier hobby for these people? The answer is clear, they have convictions in the dark privacy of the voting booth and their dank wallets.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. If El Coyote lacks resources

it would have to be due to really poor practices. They formerly had a thiriving large restaurant, that had been making buckets of moeny for decades. And that Mormon owned bar pushed out cocktails like there was no Moroni.
And going where I am not seen as equal is my freaking right. She has zero claim to my wallet to fund her hate.

El Coyote has mediocre food in a city filled with excellent food. What they were selling was the room, the feeling, the mood. She destroyed her own primary product. Out of hubris and ingnorance.

Note that the woman in question is in fact an owner, her Mom owns the place, and is ancient.

Note that Mormons are more than welcome to fill in the gap in this hypocrite's business, but of course they won't drink liquor, they will only sell it for profit, so she's going to need to work on the food if she's going to hold the Pro-Hate crowd.

[Coyote_Bandit]

59. Again

Consumers can spend whatever money they have wherever they damn well please.

Business owners have no obligation to share their political or religious beliefs or to fund or otherwise try to advance an agenda. If they chose to do so then they should consider that doing so just might promt some of their customers to retaliate by withholding business from them. Nothing wrong with the costomers doing that. But it a damn stupid business decision that serves no business purpose.

[Bluenorthwest]

124. If that is what you meant the first time

You were far, far from the mark. What you said the first round was NOT the same as this. You might wish to review your work if this is what you meant to say. Which I doubt.

[Sanctified]

214. She was not a business Owner she is an Employee. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

220. Not exactly.

It's my understanding that her elderly mother is the owner, and she will inherit. She's not just some bus boy.

[Sanctified]

221. Her mother is still the owner.

Her mother is being punished for the actions of one of the employees, they would be better off fire bombing the ladies home over punishing her mom for her actions.

[Crunchy Frog]

225. Well if I was her mother, I'd be pretty damned pissed at her for destroying my business.

Maybe Mom's got somebody more responsible that she could leave the restaurant to. :shrug:

[gollygee]

251. She isn't just an employee

If you read the article, she tried to woo "her" gay clients back by giving them a free lunch. If she had the power to do that, she isn't just an employee. It's her family business. She's on the board of directors, and for now her mom is the owner.

[SidDithers]

239. She was on the Board of Directors...nt

Sid

[La Lioness Priyanka]

238. i do not think she should have diminished our rights, if she wanted our money

[gratuitous]

13. "It's been the worst thing that's ever happened to me"

Well, Margie, let's compare, shall we? You were exposed for making a reckless political contribution against the very existence of the people who make your restaurant a going concern. They're not happy about it. And this is the "worst thing that's ever happened" to you? Dear, dear, dear, where to even begin?

If, as folks like Rick Warren point out all the time, a majority of Americans are against measures like Prop 8, then Ms. Christofferson should have no problems whatsoever keeping her restaurant going, since she's catering to the majority, right? All of her ideological compatriots should be turning out en masse to support the embattled restauranteur. Right?

Or do I smell bailout?

[T Wolf]

14. There MUST be consequences for actions. Support hatred and bigotry and you deserve ANYTHING

that happens to you.

There is right and wrong.

Compromise is not the answer to everything.

[Lyric]

18. You ought to change the "Anything" part

because one of those semantics-obsessed strawman-flingers around here will try and paint it as you saying that bigots would deserve it if someone committed physical violence against them--even though that is obviously NOT what you said. Still, you know how they are.

Otherwise--right fucking on.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dipsydoodle]

15. It's just a case of blowback.

You piss people off they get you back. I suppose its just a bit unfortunate there are so many Muslims in this world just waiting to get back at all of us.

[malaise]

16. That's life Margie

You made a choice and now your customers are making their choices. Live with it.

[Lyric]

17. No pity from me.

There are consequences to bigotry, as I am sure she's finding out the hard way right now. She could have been a hero if she'd quickly and publicly had a "change of heart" and donated to the campaign to fight Prop H8te. She chose to remain a bigot. Tough shit for her. Let her reap what she has sown.

[eilen]

21. I remember when Natalie Mains

got all kinds of blowback for her vocal opinion about the war and all the right wing said "speech is free but consequences are not" among other things. That is why it takes courage to say what you believe. She responded admirably among the death threats and other horrible things that people were saying and continued to create even in the face of losing revenue due to bans on her music and concerts. She and her bandmates turned around and focused on another market that rewarded them handsomely.

I am sure that this proprietor who sold her clientele out will either close or cater to those similarly close-minded-- but unless she caters to the Catholics (who are not of one mind as the evangelicals are), she might have to close her bar. I hear Mormons, Pentecostals and Baptists don't hold with alcohol. She should stop whining.

[Lyric]

22. I think Maines' situation was a little different, if only because

she was in the position of a minority, and corporate powers were leading the charge against her and the Dixie Chicks.

That's not quite the same thing as gay individuals (who are the minority, and have far less power) boycotting and protesting against the majority establishments. We can't do the same scale of damage to someone that the corporate media did the Maines and the Chicks.

But yeah. She should *definitely* stop whining.

[eilen]

31. Honestly, I don't see this as a gay issue.

I see it as a human or actually a civil rights issue. If I live in the environs, I too, would be banning that restaurant.

I know it seems sometimes that there is so many against GLBT because the subject is not as high on the list as someone who is not GLBT--eg-- I don't necessarily click on GLBT threads, as I am interested in more global stuff like labor, economy, environment etc. However, I take big issue with civil rights and believe that there should be no second-tier citizens in this country. Many people feel the way I do. Those who identify under the umbrella of GLBT are important members of our society and families--our lives and it does not compute that there should be any inquiry in what is a personal and individual right to pursuit of happiness. It is my hope that gay individuals do not feel so isolated or alienated.

I find organized religious sects of the Middle Eastern origin (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) to be very judgmental, oppositional, combative and intrusive.

[T Wolf]

83. Mormons, Pentecostals and Baptists don't hold with alcohol PUBLICALLY. Almost every one I am

unfortunately related to (by marriage) have their stash hidden somewhere. Whenever we visited, we were sent to buy liquor and cigarettes for them so that they could maintain their holier-than-thou mirage.

[WeDidIt]

85. There's an old joke about that.

"When you invite a Mormon to your house, how do you keep him from drinking all of your beer?"

"Invite another Mormon."

[Diclotican]

189. IWantAnyDem

IWantAnyDem

"When you invite a Mormon to your house, how do you keep him from drinking all of your beer?"

"Invite another Mormon."

Then you can welcome me into your house.. I do not drink alcoholic beverage as a point of view. But I can drink non alcoholic beer if you are so kind to have it;):.

But I have to say, I have been drunk, really wasted before, long before I was coming a member of the Church.. Have not always been ember of the Church, and in my young ages I might have been little over the top sometimes:blush: But for some year now I haven't drinket alcohol, and are fine with that. And I can party as the next person even that I don't drink.. Most of my friends is not even member of the Church so I am somewhat "normal" I guess:dilemma:

But you have a point when it came to !How to keep a mormon "dry" Some of us is maybe not that good of holding that keeping your body "clean". When it came to alcoholic or other stuff...

You know, we who are member of LDS is just human.... Nothing more, nothing less and we do have our fault and are faulting sometimes - as the next man/woman...

When it came to this gay thing and prop 8. I am little confused.. More because I did believe that it was legal to be Gay in the US... In our part of the world it have been legal for more than 30 year now. And they even have the right to have civil union here, or marriage if you want to call it that.. Even in Statskirken (we have a Church who is part of the Norwegian Government, and all the priest is payed by the government, it is a holdover from the age when the State wanted to control what was believed in the country, aka the protestants Lutheran believe of things ) the priest have to give their blessing to Gay couple this days.. So I do not have the same "Problem" as many others with that... You americans never stop mind blowing me...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Chemical Bill]

202. What's the difference between Southern Baptists and Catholics?

Catholics say hi to each other in liquor stores.

:rim-shot:

Bill

[roody]

205. What is a Baptist's dream of heaven?

Being able to drink in public.

[yardwork]

119. Lying is mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Nothing about being gay.

These people disgust me.

[Vickers]

42. "There are consequences to bigotry"

Understatement of the year!

:P

I'm positive this lady thought her hate was a total secret...SURPRISE!

[FLAprogressive]

19. stupid bitch gets what she deserves. nt

[SidDithers]

20. Too fucking bad...

perhaps she could advertise an an anti-gay establishment, and boost her business by catering to other bigots.

Sid

[gollygee]

23. Awwww, poor baby. She's had such a difficult life.

:nopity:

And I notice that her clients tried to give her an out: Margie tried to smooth things over last month by inviting gay clients to a free lunch to talk it over, but she left in tears when asked if she would write a check to the group challenging Prop. 8. Why would they keep going to her restaurant if she is hateful toward them? They basically said, "Ok, if you aren't hateful, then show us." And she wouldn't. She left in tears. Oooh poor baby.

:nopity:

[DonEBrook]

61. Oh so THAT's where my fiddle went, YOU have it!

:D
:toast:

[liberalmuse]

24. People don't genearlly donate their money to a cause...

unless they really believe in it. This is a sad story because her donation helped take away marriage for a rather influential group of people who are sick and tired of being discriminated against. Her donation helped rip apart families, and shatter the dream for potential families. I think that's so much more heinous than losing a business because the proprietor is exposed as a bigot.

I'm much more sympathetic towards those who had the rug pulled out from under them, but I do have some sympathy for the family members who had no part in their daughter's/sister's/etc. ill-given donation.

[QC]

25. Tough titty. These people wanted to fight a culture war...

and wars have casualties.

[K Gardner]

26. No pity from me. Intolerance has a price.

[Merlot]

27. I don't think she's a bigot

I think she let her church do her thinking for her. I'm guessing she's Catholic(?) and her church said it was bad. So she made this donation, probably didn't realize that it would be a public matter.

I'm not making excuses for her, she's just learning a lesson the REALLY hard way. Unfortunately, her staff are paying for her stupidity.

If she was a smart business woman, she would have immediately donated at least $100 to the challenge prop 8 group.

Once I had a small sticker on my car, a little repub elephant with a red circle/slash through it. This was during the Clinton persecution. I was doing a job for a company that was very good to me. One day the owner of the company walked with me to my car, as he was leaving at the same time. I had seen the picture of bush the first in his office, so I had no illusions. But I certainly didn't expect that he would see my car. It was uncomfortable, and I have never put a sticker on my car since. Business is business.

[yardwork]

34. She's a Mormon.

[SidneyCarton]

185. Indeed, and therefore all stereotypes apply.

:sarcasm:

[Seldona]

255. Stereotypes?

You really want to get into that here, in this thread, about this subject matter?

Sheesh!

[Bluebear]

368. Stereotypes? FFS, she DONATED money for yes on Prop 8.

[yardwork]

473. I'm not stereotyping. I responded to the other poster who said she was probably Catholic.

I made a statement of fact. It is germane to this conversation because Margie used her faith as the reason for her donation to Proposition 8 - she said that she donated because her religion required her to do so.

Apparently her faith does not discourage her from running a business that sells alcohol.

[WeDidIt]

57. Any body who donated in favor of Prop 8 is a BIGOTby definition

They supported stripping a class of people of their civil rights.

That si bigotry by definition.

[bluedawg12]

73. She's a bigot and the fact that she "left in tears" when asked to donate for anti Hate8

is further confirmation of her bigotry.

[ZombieHorde]

134. What if prop 8 banned Blacks from marriage? Would she be a bigot then?

[slackmaster]

258. Of course that would make her a bigot

From the POV of a Proposition 8 supporter, gay men and lesbians have the same right to marry as do heterosexuals.

A gay man is free to marry a woman.

A lesbian is free to marry a man.

Of course from the POV of someone who opposed it, those people are not free to marry the person of their choice, but if you believe being homosexual is a choice, then being homosexual does not qualify you for any special treatment.

[ZombieHorde]

286. I am sure that the slave owners never considered themselves to be bigots.

Banning people from marriage because of orientation is the same as banning because of race.

If she was a racist, then no here would be defending her.

[slackmaster]

292. No, slave owners didn't even consider black people to be human beings

There is a big difference.

[ZombieHorde]

294. Although the treatment is very different, she is still a bigot, and deserves to be called out on it

She views her love as being superior to their love. That is bigotry.

[Creideiki]

301. This is pretty easy

Heterosexuals have the right to marry someone that they love romantically. Gay men and lesbians do not have that right. So from a sense based in logic, the heterosexual has the special rights. Of course, if you consider heterosexuality to be a choice, that might make you want to support legislation and constitutional amendments that state that heterosexuals do not get special treatment.

But, you know, this is just from the POV of someone who isn't an idiot.

Let me know what state you're in, and how you're fighting against the special rights of those people that chose to be heterosexual. I'll be interested to hear your story.

[slackmaster]

303. I live in California, as stated in my profile

Let me know what state you're in, and how you're fighting against the special rights of those people that chose to be heterosexual. I'll be interested to hear your story.

I'm not engaged in any such fight, and I know that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, but of course I was opposed to Proposition 8 as well.

[bluedawg12]

320. Same sex marriage is not a choice

any more than opposite sex marriage is a choice.

The only choice is with-in the group that one is inherently attracted to, not outside the group.

[slackmaster]

357. Sorry to use your post as a springboard for a round of broken-record

But the core problem is that a lot of people believe that being gay is a choice.

It makes no sense to me, but then again I've actually put some thought into the issue rather than accepting what someone told me.

Boycotts and protests are all well and good for expressing outrage, but they tend to galvanize opposing views and thus are poor substitutes for education. IMO education is the way to address this problem.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

178. She's Mormon

Despite what you would think reading around here, more Catholics voted against Prop 8, than for it. The numbers voting against Prop 8, would have probably been higher minus the Hispanic population, which statistically had more people voting for it. Most Catholics I know (including priests) are not against gay rights.

[gollygee]

209. In what world does someone who actively works to take away a group's civil rights

not qualify for the word "bigot"?

[slackmaster]

260. To answer your question: A world where sexual orientation is a matter of personal choice

That's the root of the beliefs of a lot of people who oppose same-sex marriage.

Work on that misperception, and the problem will work itself out.

[Creideiki]

302. Nah, it still makes someone a bigot.

I can make the personal choice to drink margaritas. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve the same civil rights as people that believe drinking margaritas is wrong.

Moreso, I can make the personal choice to follow the religion that I choose. I still deserve the same rights as people who follow other religions--even people who follow religions antithetical to mine. I can even follow a religion that says that you don't have the right to follow the religion you choose, but I don't get to codify that into law.

[slackmaster]

360. If you are in a bar that serves only margaritas, you are shit out of luck

You have no legal recourse. You may have a right to drink alcohol, but you cannot compel that bar to make you a Piña Colada. It's your choice to not like margaritas. That is how many proponents of Proposition 8 view gay or lesbian sexual orientation.

They see government as a bar that serves up only one kind of marriage - Heterosexual (and if you don't like it, that's your problem).

[JanMichael]

28. Is that the same restaurant where Sharon Tate and her friends

ate their last meal?

[NutmegYankee]

29. Yes.

[NutmegYankee]

30. What a whiner! Take some "personal responsibility".

Sucks when it's you taking it and not the poor or downtrodden huh? You supported evil Margie.

[SidDithers]

32. Apparently, she resigned last week...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/margaritas-flow-again-el_b_149457.html

Though, I guess if her 92 year-old mother is the owner, she's still in line to inherit the restaurant someday.

Sid

[JVS]

35. "She left in tears when asked if she would write a check to the group challenging Prop. 8."

Sounds like she should have written the check

[bluedawg12]

75. Sounds like a bigot, smells like a bigot, who wants her money and bigotry

all at the same time. She needn't have quit, but the family business was loosing money.

I guess gay bashing is only worth it to her if it is on the cheap.

[yardwork]

112. She has no problem making money off alcohol, which happens to be against her religion.

Making profits off serving alcohol to customers - just fine and dandy, even though it's against Mormon doctrine.

Respecting the human rights of her customers - sorry, that's against Mormon doctrine so she can't do it.

[Midlodemocrat]

36. Fuck her. I hope the place closes.

[cali]

44. well, I don't.

I have no pity for her. I have a lot for the many employees who are now screwed by her stupidity. I hope someone buys the restaurant.

[flvegan]

38. *points and laughs*

That's what you get.

[Solly Mack]

46. She favors discrimination..she supports legalizing discrimination

she supports creating a special class of citizens with special rights ..because the only people wanting special rights are those who would deny those same rights to others


and now she wants people to feel sorry for her...

No can do

[WeDidIt]

48. Life is a series of choices

She made her choice.

Now she has to live with it.

Personally, I think she's realizing there are consequences to choices.

I also beleve she's getting exactly what she deserves.

[mondo joe]

51. I wonder if her Mormon convictions prevented her from selling Margarita$.

My guess: no.

[Odin2005]

52. No sympathy from me.

Actions have consequences, and Karma's a bitch.

[Strathos]

60. It's like those fucking people who say "I have many gay friends"

Listen homosexuals, (I'm one so I can say this) if you're friends with a person who thinks you don't deserve to marry who you love or to adopt children or are a threat to "heterosexual marriage", then that person is NOT YOUR FUCKING FRIEND. If you're that desperate for a friend, I pity you.

This woman is getting what she deserves. You can not be friendly with a group of people then vote against them or take actions that limit their freedom. She's a liar, those who befriend her are self-haters and I feel nothing for her.

It's a lesson that will hopefully be learned.

Also, you fucking Log Cabin Republicans. Here's a hint, THE REPUBLICANS HATE YOUR FAGGOTY ASSES and that's exactly how they refer to you, but they love taking your money.

[readmoreoften]

62. Why doesn't the LA Times run an article on sad, misunderstood Klan members

next time around? "I just think that whites culture needs to be preserved! I don't hate the negro! Why-o-why am I so persecuted???!!!! Lord make my burden light!"

:sarcasm:

[gollygee]

71. Yeah

"Black people won't shop at my store anymore now that they know I'm in the Klan! Why do they persecute me so!"

[bluedawg12]

81. Maybe because they are a right wing repig rag?

They are owned by the now going into bankrupcy Chicago Tribune rag.

I want progressives to know the real enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Times

Editorial policy
For most of its first 80 years, the Times had been known as an unabashedly conservative paper, reflecting the stance of Harrison Gray Otis. Under the Chandlers, however, the paper gradually adopted a more centrist tone.

For many years, the Times was unique among major American newspapers in that it refused to endorse any candidate for president. Its endorsement of Richard Nixon's reelection bid in 1972 caused a furor in the newsroom due to the Chandlers' longstanding relationship with Nixon.

<snip>
Controversies
The forcible relocation and internment of approximately 110,000 Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans to "War Relocation Camps" during World War II was enthusiastically supported by the Times, which wrote:<25>

"A viper is nonetheless a viper whenever the egg is hatched - so a Japanese American, born of Japanese parents - grows up to be a Japanese, not an American."

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed a legislation that recognized the deportation and internment as "fundamentally unjust",<26> but the Times never apologized for its attitude towards Japanese Americans during World War II.

<snip>

Following the GOP's defeat in the 06 mid-term Elections, an Opinion piece published on November 19, 2006 by Joshua Muravchik, a leading neoconservative and a resident scholar at the conservative view American Enterprise Institute, titled BOMB IRAN shocked some readers, with its hawkish overtures in support of more unilateral action by the United States, this time against Iran.<29>

<snip>


Also in March 2007 the Times faced rumors that publisher David Hiller suggested and approved former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, with whom Hiller has close personal and business contacts, for a guest editorial position at the newspaper.<32> Rumsfeld was an influential Iraq war hawk in the George W. Bush administration. Rumsfeld also has strong ties to the Times' parent company, the Tribune Company, where he was a member of the board of directors.<32>
...........

:nuke:

[lolly]

146. So, don't you read Jonah Goldberg's columns?

Lucianne's poor widdo pasty baby boy has written tons of columns about how persecuted and oppressed white men are. And he just wrote one comparing O.J. to Obama--both got favorable treatment because they were black, doncha know?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

175. Best response to this thread.

The restaurant owner is a TERRIBLE person. She can't even admit a mistake.

Fucking idiot.

[Bill McBlueState]

63. "It's been so hard"

In a sane country, it should be hard to oppose civil rights.

[bluedawg12]

64. Love the bigot - hate bigotry.

Much like the often quoted aphorism: "Love the sinner - hate the sin" carries with it consequences for gays far, far, beyond the platitude.

In saying love the sinner for gays in particular, hating the sin spills over into consequences for gay people that far exceed the aphorism.

Love the sinner?
Yet deny adoption rights?

Love the sinner?
Yet vehemently oppose equal rights under law for same sex marriage?

Well, the same holds true for love the bigot and hate the abstract term "bigotry."

When the hammer comes down on bigotry it also comes down on the bigot.

That's the way it works when people stand up to "bigotry" there is a consequence to the bigot for their actions.

Boycotts send a message.

People are free to vote as they want and when they vote to take away the civil rights of other human beings, others are free to send them a message about the consequences of their choices.

[ColbertWatcher]

90. You should put that on a t-shirt. n/t

[DonEBrook]

65. Sorry but I'm just plumb out of empathy for bigots. Nobody forced her to be a Mor(m)on

or to shit on the very people who provide for her "lifestyle."
:grr:

[bluedawg12]

68. The only reason she resigned is because loss of revenue -coward.

I guess when sh*ting on the gay community was cheap and easy and perhaps she hoped no one was watching - then she had "beliefs."

Well, then don't quit dearie, watch your revenue fall and be a mensch and stand by your bigoted vote!

[gollygee]

70. Her family owns the restaurant

so it's in her family's best interest, and still in her personal financial best interest, if she disappears from there for a while. I don't think it was so altruistic of a move.

[bluedawg12]

76. Yup - the days of gay bashing on the "cheap" are over.

There is now a cost associated with it. This has mobilized and galvanized the GLBTQ community nation wide and we are all Californians now!

[yardwork]

444. That's what has changed now.

[leftofthedial]

69. I guess bigotry has a cost.

[DevonRex]

77. Choices have consequences. Perhaps she understands that now.

[bluedawg12]

78. For the GLBTQ community: We are ALL Californians now.

We stand united in solidarity nationwide.

[WeDidIt]

86. For those who support equal rights for all

we are all GLBTQ people now.

[DevonRex]

88. Yes, we do. I'm humbled by the GLBT community. I cannot imagine

what they have gone through their entire lives. I cannot imagine handling it with the dignity and grace that they have shown over and over again. And I'm humbled by their courage and determination in fighting against that atrocious proposition.

What does Q stand for? I seem to be out of the loop on that one.

[bluedawg12]

103. We appreciate the support of allies.

Here is some info on “Q”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLBT
.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questioning_(sexuality_and_gender)

Questioning
.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer

Queer

[ContinentalOp]

80. The food is terrible, but it's an L.A. landmark and we can't afford to lose another one of those.

Hopefully she'll lose the place and somebody else will buy it and keep it running.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

232. It'd be nice for it to sport a banner reading:

"NOW UNDER NON-BIGOT OWNERSHIP"

[Hepburn]

87. Great, long-time, L.A. restaurant....with shitty political views.

IMO, no business that supported Prop H8 gets my money. Will eat Mexican food elsewhere.

:hi:

[ColbertWatcher]

89. What a pathetic excuse for a human being.

First she makes a living off gay people while secretly hating them, then she makes a political donation to take rights away from them--a right that everyone else enjoys and would not have had any effect on her life whatsoever--finally, she hopes to not have any responsibility for her personal choices!

Please join me in mocking the fuck out of this person (http://www.wikiality.com/Margie_Christoffersen)

I just started the page after I saw the OP, but if anyone wants to add anything, you're more than welcome to, just create a free account first to hide your IP address.

BTW, be sure to check the links, they don't go where you think they'd go!

[LeftyMom]

91. Excuse me while I shed one tiny tear for poor Margie.

:nopity:

[Dan]

92. just curious

did she donate as a private citizen (personal check) or as a business owner (Business check)?

[chatnoir]

125. Private citizen from what I read in one of the articles

[AtomicKitten]

93. Wingnut vindictiveness rearing its ugly head.

[Starry Messenger]

94. Good.

People who fund rights removals should be shunned.

[BR_Parkway]

95. The hypocrasy isn't surprising - Mormon's making money off of liquor

and a large GLBT crowd. Maybe she's just shocked that the rest of us actually stand on principle and decide not to spend money with that establishment now.

Hell, Prop 8 had more voters FOR than against, why aren't her missing customers being replaced with those who share her views and supported taking away another groups rights. Sounds like they could have a big old fun fest there.

And as for her not making the donation would have made it ok, she could believe what she wanted? Bullshit, not any more.

I am through with being tolerated because someone else holds different beliefs. There is no more letting people stand there with that attitude. I totally respect their right to hold beliefs different than mine. But that doesn't equate to respect or tolerance for what those beliefs are when it comes down to bigotry.

If you choose to be involved with a religion that teaches/practices bigotry - then you've chosen to be a bigot. It really doesn't get any more simple than that.

[earth mom]

97. Sounds like Karma caught up with her rather quickly. nt

[Edweird]

99. She made her own bed and now must lay in it.

[anonymous171]

100. How many gay couples have had there lives thrown into turmoil because of Prop 8?

No sympathy for that bigot.

[mondo joe]

101. "I don't want you to have the same rights as me, but I want your money." NT

[Jamastiene]

102. Oh, woe is her.

:nopity:

[CitizenPatriot]

111. what a bummer

I used to eat there all the time when I lived in LA and always go back for good Mexican food when I'm working in LA.

I guess I won't be going there anymore...I wonder what the woman was thinking when she made this donation. Edited because I misunderstood something about the article -- I see she was given a chance to make this right and she didn't. What can she be thinking???

I feel bad for her employees because now they may be out of a job:-(

[dpbrown]

115. You reap what you sow

No pity.

[Incitatus]

121. Now she knows what it feels like to be discriminated against

:nopity:

[anigbrowl]

131. I'm not sure that becoming what you despise counts as a win

I donated to the campaign against Prop 8. But I don't support this at all.

[Solon]

152. I don't see gay people trying to strip her of her right to marriage...

until then, you can just shut the fuck up.

[gollygee]

210. What exactly don't you support?

Do you not support people's ability to freely choose what restaurant they eat at based on whatever reasoning they want?

[readmoreoften]

293. Hey, I'm not becoming a phony who rationalizes discrimination by thinking a $10 donation to No on 8

gives me the right to spout off some bullshit humanist stance about "people being people" and how if you take any action against those who discriminate against you you're "becoming what you despise...."

Sorry, doesn't describe what I'm becoming at all.

[yardwork]

474. "Becoming what you despise?" WTF are you talking about?

I despise efforts to strip people of their civil rights. How am I becoming what I despise? I'm not advocating changing California's state constitution to take away Margie's right to get married. That would be "becoming what I despise."

As for loud, angry protests and the decision to withhold support from businesses run by bigots - where I come from, those are considered good things to do. Black people would have no rights in the south if they and their allies hadn't done that.

[Skittles]

123. I can't drum up any sympathy for her

I'll save my sympathy for the gay employees who may be out of work

[deaniac21]

127. She and her ilk should be totaly destroyed. There is no room

in the US for their kind.

[enigmatic]

128. I have no sympathy for her

She had a chance to make things right and instead put another can of gasoline on the fire. And then cried to the media about being treated "unfairly".

Tough shit.

[AngryAmish]

129. This is a prime example of what we should do to our enemies -CRUSH THEM

They should be forced to close their businesses and their children should be kicked out of school. forclose on their houses.

Make them live on the street. Destroy them all.

[Iggo]

133. .

:rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

144. Destroy them all. - In times of economic crisis, it would be a shame to

waste all of that meat.

[yardwork]

475. That's what the right-wing does to gay people.

It's legal in many states to fire people and kick them out of housing for being gay. It's legal in most states to deny parents the right to adopt children because they are gay.

"Destroy them all" is the message heard in thousands of church pulpits throughout the nation every Sunday, talking about queer people.

[Arugula Latte]

132. Glad she's suffering consequences ... Feel bad for her employees.

[anigbrowl]

136. She gave $100. This is way out of proportion; just picking on the weak

I don't agree with her political views, but $100 is nothing. you don't even have your name published for a donation of that amount to a candidate. Protestors could have started by writing a letter or just staying away on Thursdays, but protesting the whole restaurant and yelling at customers (who probably had no idea about the issue until they arrived at the restaurant that evening) is not my idea of constructive.

I'm disgusted by all the self-stroking here. You'd think she'd set fire to someone's house or something. This is not an effective way to protest Prop 8, it's just bullying trying to hide behind a good cause. I put a good bit more money into No on 8 than this woman did into the Yes campaign, by the way. I was happy to support No on * because it ran a campaign of dignified opposition, not intimidation.

[closeupready]

137. Are you gay or not?

Yes, it's relevant.

[anigbrowl]

140. Not; and no, it isn't relevant

I didn't need to be gay to know that Prop8 was a bad thing as soon as it qualified for the ballot. And I don't need to be directly disenfranchised by its passing to be annoyed about it. Nor do I need to be gay to appreciate the fact that mobbing the restaurant is a bully tactic. I'm just glad they didn't call out the gay employees as scabs and beat them up for disloyalty or somesuch.

I was against Prop 8 because I believe in dignity and equal rights for all. I even extend that to people I disagree with. Mobbing a restaurant because one employee there made a small donation to a cause you don't agree with isn't the right way to go about fixing this situation.

[closeupready]

142. I don't believe Lopez' biased characterization of the protestors as a "mob".

He's obviously painting a sympathetic portrait of someone who, post-Prop 8 held a community meeting with members of the gay community to explain her donation; she allegedly refused to reverse course.

And if you aren't gay, then no, you can NOT understand the depth of outrage that people who have been stripped of their civil rights by popular vote feel.

Do I feel that a $100 donation merits the protests? I don't honestly know. I don't live in LA and have never been to El Coyote, but I do know that if I became aware that a similar establishment here in New York had done something similar, you better believe I would fully support 100% a boycott of that establishment, esp. if I were a longtime, loyal customer. As a matter of fact, on a personal level, I have ceased patronizing several establishments on the basis of similar circumstances.

[anigbrowl]

154. That's my opinion based on the photograph

And i don't see any evidence for your claim of bias on the part of the writer. A boycott is an entirely different thing, although I note that boycotting a business because of one person who works there (alongside many gay people, and without using the restaurant as a platform for her political views) again raises questions of proportion. Picketing churches that promoted yes on 8 would be more productive.

And yes, I do think I can know quite well how it feels without being gay. Unfortunately, such situations are not unique to gay people.

[Solon]

155. That's one person's family OWNS the damned business...

Its not just some lowly employee who started there a few months ago who donated, for crying out loud. How patronizing can you get?

[QC]

156. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that misrepresentation.

Big difference between mopping the floors and owning the joint.

[Solon]

162. I'm sick and tired of these fucking breeders telling GLBT people how they should react...

I can say that, I'm a fucking breeder. :)

On a more serious note, the fact of the matter is that, as a straight person myself, I frankly lost all tolerance for this fucking ignorance by fellow straight people. I'm sick of them.

[QC]

164. One thing I have noticed is that DU has plenty of helpful heterosexuals

eager to teach me how to be a good little homo.

What would I do without them?

[Solon]

166. As a heterosexual myself, I simply think its not my place to tell you how you should feel...

or act. I know how I feel, and how I would act, and I'm outraged at the injustices foisted upon GLBT people in California and nationwide, and frankly all I know I should do is support all efforts towards equality.

[anigbrowl]

167. Which I already mentioned. See #165.

[Sub Atomic]

148. Sorry but I disagree. This is an effective way to protest hate.

For decades, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gendered people have been discriminated against. Jobs, homes, families, livelihoods have been destroyed because of the hate against us.

We're done. We've had enough. We're not taking any more of this bullshit.

The destruction of this woman and hopefully this business ought send a very, very powerful message out there to any group that wants to keep working on making us second class citizens who don't deserve the same rights as any other American citizen.

[anigbrowl]

165. I'm sure the laid-off gay employees will be thrilled

I'd see your point better if she's donated thousands of dollars or offered the restaurant as a free campaign HQ for the local yes on 8 campaign or something along those lines. But a $100 donation? Not buying it. I don't think she's a hater especially, she probably give a bill based on some misguided belief in protecting the innocence of children or because she didn't want God to be angry with her.

Go to http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html and look at where the big money came from - thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousand or over a million in some cases. Where's the protest in DC against 'Concerned women of America', who donated ~$400k? I don't see any protests outside Knights of Columbus branches ($1,425,000). Or against Robert Hurtt, down in Orange County, who handed over $400k.

Picketing this business because one of the nominal owners gave $100 is petty. I totally understand people deciding not to eat there any more, but I also think holding street protests it's a classic example of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It's practically asking for a backlash. Now, (again on http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/) there are examples of boycotts against large businesses which funnelled huge donations towards the campaign - THAT's effective, because it's a demonstration of people power against big $$$.

[Solon]

168. She's a bigot, just because she uses her religion as a cover is no excuse...

in addition, people can walk and chew gum at the same time, and boycotts are ongoing against all those who support bigotry.

[anigbrowl]

172. Once again you fail to address the point, which is proportionality

Trying to run a business employing ~80 people into the ground because of a small donation by the owner to a crappy cause is disproportionate. I see no point in emulating the sort of tactics which we find deplorable when used by the right wing; nor am I willing to make judgments about her being a bigot as you are. She doesn't strike me as politically sophisticated, and there is a huge difference between driving a campaign and getting suckered into supporting it.

[Solon]

183. What the fuck is with this "proportionality" bullshit?

Look, she donated to take rights away from her own employees, in addition to millions of other Americans, it doesn't matter if it was 1 dollar or 100 dollars, that is what she did. It is one of the hallmark definitions of someone who is a bigot. I don't see where she was suckered into anything.

[anigbrowl]

186. It's called tactics

Protesting someone who's written a check for half a million dollars to Yes on 8 is likely to make other people think twice about trying to buy their way to a constitutional amendment. Protesting someone who donated $100 - especially in this fashion - is likely to spur a wave of smaller sympathy donations. Rather the same way that we went to Afghanistan after 9/11, where we had some completely legitimate targets but made the mistake of also arresting teenagers with slingshots because they looked funny at us (warning: metaphor, some thinking required).

[Solon]

191. Even your metaphor fails, horribly...

Those kids with slingshots were practically powerless versus the might of the American military. This woman crying all these tears is a member of the majority oppressing the minority. In addition, on a moral level, I view those who donated 100 dollars versus half a million dollars in the same light, they are both scum, and should be treated as such.

[anigbrowl]

192. I figured it was too complicated for you.

Oh well.

[bluedawg12]

250. Here's some proportionality: they claim a 30% drop in business

that's not the end of the world. Yet, she runs her mouth at the LAT right wing rag again about her tribulations.

[yardwork]

438. Where are all the supporters of Proposition 8? Why aren't they going to the restaurant?

If 30% of her business came from gay people and supporters of civil rights, maybe she shouldn't have donated to an effort that successfully stripped civil rights from gay people.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

177. You seem to think she should get a free pass because she hires gay people.

In my mind, the fact that she works next to, and caters to, gay people makes her donation all that more despicable - regardless of the size of the donation.

I can ALMOST forgive bigotry based on ignorance - such as some douche-bag from Utah who has never met or known openly gay people... but someone who lives and works among gay people must realize we all have the same wants, hopes, dreams, problems, issues etc.

Surely she has had employees or customers in committed relationships.
Surely, in all her years at that establishment, she has witnessed the effects of discrimination, gay bashing and other forms of hate.

Like that theater director who resigned, she is no babe in the woods.

Fuck her.

Crush her business. Her employees will find other jobs.

[Bluenorthwest]

269. Many people like to hire folks they look down upon

that way they can treat them poorly and not feel badly about it. Many hire minorities they dispise in order to work without feeling toward their employees. They don't hire their own because they'd have to treat them as human beings. It sure is not hard to find huge history of racists not just hiring the hated minority, but of actually seeking them out and kidnapping them into slavery to make sure they had a work force they could abuse with impunity.

[Clovis Sangrail]

215. I don't think KoC or CWA have a gay customer base... or have they expanded into new areas? /nt

[anigbrowl]

278. Irrelevant.

I said (repeatedly) that I have no problem with people choosing to boycott the place if they feel offended. I'm talking about who are the sensible targets to protest (as in picket), and I suggest there's a lot more to be achieved by challenging the people who raised $1,400,000 (the Knights of Columbus) for Yes on 8 than the person who donated $100.

It's more difficult, because you need to raise a bigger crowd of people, and also because organizations like that know how to use publicists and suchlike to get their message out, so it requires more planning, media outreach, and so forth. But it's also a hell of a lot more effective. People like Knights of Columbus, Concerned Women of America etc. are 'the enemy' - they're organized, and they're willing and able to channel vast sums of money towards initiatives like proposition 8 (even though they almost certainly know that it doesn't meet the legal thresholds for a constitutional amendment...which is fine by them, because it keeps the issue alive and that keeps the donations flowing in). Successfully defeating that enemy requires confronting them and winning.

Confronting, instead, some two-bit restaurant owner who made a piddling little donation sends bystanders a simple message: that the Gay Marriage Movement is localized, petty, and afraid of big challenges. It's a piss-poor political tactic which only benefits the conservative opponents of gay marriage. It's the equivalent of attacking an opposing army's cook instead of calling out the general for a pitched battle. Fortunately, wiser people are staging some protests against the big donors and I support them 100% in that, as they're much more likely to to build support for the cause of equal rights.

If you have trouble seeing why a $1,4000,000 donation is more worthy of protest than a $100 donation, then I am not going to be able to explain it to you.

[Clovis Sangrail]

306. the best targets aren'tnecessarily the biggest donors

people going into a KoC hall aren't going turn away because of gay rights protesters
people who encounter the same protesters at El Coyote very well might stop going there and might become outraged at the intolerance that allowed 8 to pass.

[Waiting For Everyman]

184. If she had so much "conscience" she could've donated NOTHING and NOT VOTED on it.

She's a slime. She probaby was smugly sure that it would never be found out.

[anigbrowl]

187. You're right. In fact, let's abolish secret ballots

Then we can make sure everyone is ideologically pure. I don't think she's particularly slimy, just misguided. From the posts here, you'd think she was one of the prime movers behind the Yes on 8 campaign. If this has been better played, she could have been turned into a No on 8 supporter. As it is, she's probably going to become a WND poster girl, willingly or not.

[Solon]

193. Did anyone advocate for abolishing secret ballots? Talk about erecting a strawman!

Look, you have few, if any points to make here. Bigots are not to be coddled, but to be confronted, no matter how little or how much they use their bigotry to oppress others.

[Waiting For Everyman]

197. It wasn't conscience, or she could've done as I suggested.

She could've been true to her beliefs without attacking HER OWN customers, by actively taking neither side - by recusing herself so to speak. Instead, she wanted to financially support Prop 8, and then smile in her customers' faces. That's slimy. (Geez, if that isn't clear without having to explain it, then there are some slimy people here too.)

And it has nothing to do with secret ballots. This information came out because of the uproar about it. I'm sure she never expected that.

It's not about ideologically pure either. It's about you don't shaft those you pretend to befriend (and profit from).

[anigbrowl]

198. Does that make it OK to intimidate her customers?

I am really not that concerned about this woman, except insofar as she seems like the type that could have been brought to see reason. What I'm not happy about is other customers and employers suffering because some people decide to equate a measly $100 donation (in other words, not-corporate sized) with being Worst in the World.

Think about it. You get in your car or walk to your favorite cheap restaurant, but when you get there there's an angry crowd yelling at you and telling you not to support (issue). You just wanted some cheap food and a beer, and had no idea you were walking into a political confrontation. That's not educational or informative, it's intimidatory. Regardless of the principle at stake, bullying people is self-defeating. I'm sorry, but this just looks like the 'gay panic' defense in reverse, and having been queer-bashed myself I don't think that this is a productive response.

[WillParkinson]

227. Wow...

A group of people tell you as you enter a restaurant that the person who is in charge helped to deny them of civil rights.

Yep, I can see where that wouldn't be at all educational.

And what do you base the "angry crowd yelling at you" on? Just curious.

On edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stg8ZqqcICc

is a link to one of the protests. Yes, the group is loud. Yes, they're chanting shame on you to people as they enter/leave or perhaps they're referencing the owner, I don't know. But they maintained a respectable distance from the doors.

And if you'd like to call that angry fine, but please tell me something: Why don't these people have a right to be angry? They've given this restaurant money for years. They helped make it the success that it is. Then the owner, who had no problems taking money from the people she "loves", stabs them in the heart (metaphor for you because, you know, that's where it hurts when someone betrays you). Personally I thought they handled the whole thing very well.

[closeupready]

231. Okay. Now that I've seen the video, I disagree that they were intimidating anyone.

They did keep a respectful distance and the photo which LA Times' Steve Lopez provided readers was COMPLETELY unrepresentative. Not surprised considering who owns the LA Times. :mad:

I mean, I can just hear it: "No, that's no good. I need ANGER! I need RABID! SCAAARYY!" :eyes:

[Waiting For Everyman]

233. If I remember LA correctly, those hungry customers could've found

another restaurant, probably, within the same block. There are a whole lot of places to eat there, as I recall. I doubt that would've been too tough on them.

[mondo joe]

199. I'll need to disagree. We have few enough weapons to strike back with.

Part of what makes this effective is that no supporter of Prop8 is safe. Anyone can be accountable.

[gollygee]

207. "Picking on the weak"? How is she "weak"?

She sounds like a wealthy woman who owns a profitable business. I would classify as "the weak" people who don't have full civil rights before I'd classify her as that. Please.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

236. voting to take away minority rights and donating toward it is just picking on the weak

[yardwork]

271. I didn't yell at anybody but I'm sure not going to spend my money at a restaurant owned by bigots.

I have to choose where to spend my money - economy's down and all, maybe you hadn't heard. I can spend my money at a restaurant owned by somebody who helped take away my rights, or I can do down the street to a more human-rights friendly place.

My choice. The marketplace and all that.

[anigbrowl]

274. This, I have no dispute with.

As I said repeatedly, if people choose not to spend money there any more that makes perfect sense to me.

[yardwork]

279. Then what's your beef?

[anigbrowl]

280. Please see #136 again

Holding large street protests outside the restaurant and yelling at customers is tactically self-defeating. That's a whole different thing from choosing not to eat there.

[yardwork]

284. I know this may come as a surprise to you, but there is no single "gay" organization.

I some people - gay and straight - choose to hold protests that is their business. They didn't take a vote of all gay people and gay-supporters before doing this, and I don't have anything to do with their choice.

Why is it surprising that people choose to protest outside businesses that show so little regard for them as human beings, and who is to say that it is tactically self-defeating? Seems to me that you are being very judgmental about something that doesn't involve you at all.

Wake up tomorrow and see one of your rights taken away and see how you feel then.

[anigbrowl]

290. Agreed...

but I think those campaigning against prop 8 (which includes me) do better when efforts are coordinated. As it happens, I'm pretty short on rights since I'm not a citizen; so I get to pay taxes, but not vote. I volunteer or campaign instead to make up for the fact.

[readmoreoften]

295. Thanks. I'll fight whoever I want. And if you get in my way, I'll fight you too.

She's lucky we didn't throw molotov cocktails in her windows like we did during Stonewall Riots. What a public relations fiasco that whole STONEWALL thing was! :eyes:

We better behave or good moral citizens like you might lose interest in fighting for us! O, and what tireless champions folks like you have been!

Glad we don't take tactical advice from centrist, heterosexual, wealthy stockbroker-cheerleaders who pretend that their literal distance from the effects of real discrimination makes them experts on ethics because their privileged detachment somehow make them more 'balanced'...

[Jax]

300. Wish I could recommend this post

"Glad we don't take tactical advice from centrist, heterosexual, wealthy stockbroker-cheerleaders who pretend that their literal distance from the effects of real discrimination makes them experts on ethics because their privileged detachment somehow make them more 'balanced'..."

thanks for the info, makes sense now.

Equal rights under the law for EVERYONE. I will shout it, boycott anyone I choose. Never going to shut up again like that poster wants, now I see why they want that.

Alyce

[Rockholm]

436. $100 IS something. Magnify that by a few thousand donations.

Isn't that Obama raised hundreds of millions, a little at a time?

[KamaAina]

143. Somebody call her a Waaahmbulance!

Quick! Dial Whine-One-One!

[DainBramaged]

147. And targeting the woman has eliminated jobs for many, how proud is everyone over that?

Close down the business and put gays out of work at a gay friendly business to punish a woman for a $100 donation. That's like throwing a firebomb in the house to control ants. It could have been handed better, some people didn't think this out. The employees could have frozen her out and forced her to quit, but now, the future of the restaurant is at risk, because of $100.


It may be a victory to some, but you are losing the war by giving the non-supporters a reason to make her a martyr.

[FreeState]

190. $100 and how many peoples marriage rights are gone? N/t

[DainBramaged]

195. There were better ways, but I'm not going to argue, her $100 didn't take their rights away

You HAVE to win the war, not the skirmishes. Many undeserving people were punished to punish the woman over $100. If you can't see that, there is no point continuing.

[FreeState]

216. How many people donated $100? $200? How much is too much?

How much is my relationship worth?

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=283467309891049

[gollygee]

243. Why would gay people feel comfortable eating there after knowing what she thinks about them

regardless of specifically how much she gave? If I were black and I learned a restaurant's owner had given money to the KKK, I imagine I would be sickened by the idea of eating there again, regardless of how much money it was.

[QC]

259. But...but...but...she has a RIGHT to people's money! Can't you see?

She has a right to those mean old queers' patronage. A right, I'm telling you!

:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

200. Did you expect gay people to continue to put money into her wallet to use against us?

Did you?

[terrya]

246. I genuinely don't understand her. Please explain it to me.

This is supposed to be a gay friendly restaurant. She has gay employees. Presumably, she cares something about them.

And yet, not only does she vote for this blatant discrimination, she voluntarily donates to it.

How can you cater to gay people, take their money as customers and then discriminate against them at the same time?

I was reading some comments by Donny Osmond about his support of Proposition 8. He said he has gay friends, he loves them, etc. But then his church's teachings are against same-sex marriage, so he had to support Prop 8. How can you say you have gay friends, and profess to care about them, but at the same time support taking away their rights? Wouldn't you begin to question your church and its attitudes towards gay and lesbian people?

[mondo joe]

262. I'm sure pre-civil rights act there were people who felt fondly toward their black servants.

And before that I'm sure there were slave owners who felt fondly toward their slaves.

They just didn't consider them their equals.

Same thing.

(Or, looked at another way: She saw gay$ as a source of income, but not equals.)

[slackmaster]

263. She probably does not understand that sexual orientation is not a matter of conscious choice

It's been pretty thoroughly proved to not be a choice (at least for a large majority of people). You and I know that, yet the misunderstanding remains entrenched. I hear it from people all the time.

[Creideiki]

304. She could have, you know, asked someone

"Hey, Joe, you're gay. Is it a conscious choice?

"Hey, Debbie, you're gay. Is it a conscious choice?"

It's not like she didn't have access to, say, her clientele and staff.

[slackmaster]

308. All it takes is a couple of minutes of semi-deep self-reflection

I can't remember choosing to be heterosexual, nor can I recall any time in my life where I could have arbitrarily decided to be attracted to males instead of females.

I have no reason to believe that the experience of LGBT people is any different.

[yardwork]

270. How many jobs did Yes on Prop 8 eliminate? All those wedding planners, caterers, florists...

In some ways it is a zero sum game. People can choose to spend their money at a restaurant owned by someone who contributed to taking away gay rights, or they can spend their money someplace else. There's only one dinner in every day for each individual.

[muriel_volestrangler]

431. Or they have increased jobs at restaurants that really are gay-friendly

ie ones where the manager doesn't donate to gay-hating propositions.

[Political Heretic]

468. You're buying into the emotionalized language of the piece.

Re-read that article again and notice how it is completely set up using lots of manipulative and hyperbolic language to create sympathy for the store owner and villianize (and paint them as fringe "activists" and "mobs") the concerned community members.

[IndianaJones]

149. clearly not a bigoted act on her part. what a misunderstanding. nt.

[ulysses]

309. how is it not?

[Tatiana]

150. I don't feel sorry for her. Some people are mistaking political views for support of human rights.

Frankly, I hope this happens to anyone who donated to an effort to strip humans of their marriage rights.

[ColbertWatcher]

157. Again, I invite my fellow DUers to mock this pathetic person ...

... on the Truthiness Encyclopedia (http://www.wikiality.com/Margie_Christoffersen).

Please create your own personalized free account so no one can see your IP address.

Come join the fun, I started it yesterday after I read this OP and decided she wasn't suffering enough if she was able to get the LA Times to publish an article that makes her out to be the victim.

[Alexander]

158. Cry me a river. The Mormons have their own theocracy.

It's called Utah.

If you don't want people to find out about your contributions, don't contribute. Simple as that.

[derby378]

159. If she wanted to donate, she should have kept herself anonymous

Sure, she has the right to donate to whatever screwed-up political initiative she wants, but there are consequences to her decisions. And Fundrace has become an invaluable tool to many activists.

[dysfunctional press]

161. shouldn't all the gay employees quit working there?

why would they want to accept paychecks from such an establishment?

:shrug:

[QC]

163. Perhaps they have gotten in the habit of eating. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

170. cash generally trumps personal values, it would seem.

nt

[closeupready]

171. Most of their gay employees probably aren't so philosophical that they're willing to starve

over this, so yes, if having the job there and eating with food purchased from the income from same is one of two options, the other being unemployment and little money/fewer meals/more hunger, they'll stay put.

[anigbrowl]

173. I suspect most of them didn't even know until the protesters showed up

I also think their decision to keep working there or not is backed up some first-hand experience of how this person actually is. It's not like this restaurant was the local Yes on 8 nerve center.

[closeupready]

196. I know what you are saying. Personally, I agree with the principle of proportionality.

I guess what is at dispute is just how big of an offense was what she did. I do not live in CA, but if I did, I would be plenty pissed off that a restaurant hostess where I had been a loyal openly gay customer (in concert with many others) for many years had given financial support to a seemingly successful effort to strip me of my civil rights. In the aftermath, whether the donation was $100 or $1000 wouldn't really matter to me. I have ended long-term friendships over a number of different things. If someone had been my personal friend before Prop. 8, and I later found out they had given money to support it, I would almost certainly end the relationship. Would I urge others to stay away? I don't know - sometimes perhaps I would. It really is dependent on the situation.

Anyway, I think I'm repeating myself so I'll just leave it at that.

[anigbrowl]

203. Yes, basically.

I have no problem with a boycott, or even leafleting patrons outside the business if she wasn't open to discussing the matter. My problem is with taking it out on other people (eg those innocently in search of a taco), as well as the reaction to such a tiny donation. It's like picketing some random Catholic person and saying that their attendance of church equates to the abuse of altar boys. This is not going going to do any favors for the cause of gay marriage whatsoever, but it'll provide plenty of fodder for the reactionaries.

[bluedawg12]

213. She's the owner's daughter and not some random person

nor just the hostess, it's her family's business.

[anigbrowl]

281. she's a random person in the context of the Yes on 8 campaign

As I pointed out earlier, it's not like the restaurant was the local HQ for the Yes on 8 organizers or something, or as if she was one of the key organizers. I think you misunderstood the context of my remark.

By contrast, I keep pointing out that the big donors are both valid and more effective targets for protest.

[gollygee]

282. Yes and I've read about protests against them too

I think this particular place was targeted because the gay clientele was surprised to see their hang-out listed on the donor list.

[anigbrowl]

285. Correct. Here's something I think would have worked much better at El Coyote...

[gollygee]

287. I think what they're doing is working pretty well

and I can't imagine if someone had given money to a group that targeted me in that way that I'd be able to keep eating there. There's no way I'd keep eating there.

[anigbrowl]

291. I don't. Getting the police called out doesn't bring people on side

I've never suggested anyone should keep eating there after getting disappointed about where their money goes. But I think that protests against the big donors, like at the Mormon temples, are vastly more effective in advancing the cause of equality. The ones outside the restaurant are just making this woman into a poster child for those who spread fear about 'teh gay'.

[readmoreoften]

296. Right: Rosa Parks. Stonewall. Civil Rights Cafeteria Sit-Ins. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Learn some history. Getting the police called is usually standard for getting people on your side.

[mondo joe]

315. Randomness is more powerful than going only after the big donors.

The fact is we gays don't have the numbers to hit everyone who attacked us. The better strategy is to hit some of the big ones and some of the small ones. Unpredictability is always more fear-producing.

[bluedawg12]

319. Since many of the donations were purposely small to hide big Churches

involvement her business is an appropriate target.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

316. Maybe you should organize one.

:shrug:

[plantwomyn]

298. You keep harping on the size of her donation.

Perhaps it's "proportionate" to her income. She could have agreed to donate an equal amount to No on 8 or she could have said she would donate to an HIV hospice, ect. The fact that she does have gay employees and patrons makes her betrayal all the more outrageous. These people are HURT! She smiled in their face and stabbed them in the back. Are they to say "May I have some more please"? The religious right boycotts companies all the time. They picket, chant, blog and publicize their reasons for boycotting too. Ask Ford, Saturn, Proctor & Gamble. And their are many small Gay businesses that have been given the same treatment all over the U.S.
Her "it's not me it's my church" crap is not acceptable. She made a choice and refused to make amends. Where is her church now? You would think they would flock :rofl: to her side and fill her place every night. Instead her business is down. I only hope that every business large and small gets the message that if you attack my rights you WILL pay the price. Most of these people only recognize one consequence. $$$$$$$$$$
As for her gay employees. If I were her employee, I'd wear rainbow colors and take her money. I would make a change for the better from within. Closing them off from their Gay "family" only leaves them to their bigoted church. She may be lost but her kids may come to realize that their Gay "family" stood with them when their church didn't. Good lesson.

[slackmaster]

363. Yes, sometimes it does

Each of us is entitled to prioritize our own values, and each of us bears responsibility for the consequences of our decisions.

[mondo joe]

201. Individual choice.

Not for others to say.

[dysfunctional press]

230. tell that to the protesters trying to get others to boycott the restaurant...

nt

[mondo joe]

240. That's their choice too.

I don't believe in trying to compel others to not use the restaurant.

I wouldn't do that.

Letting them know why they might not want to is another matter.

[gollygee]

248. Apparently, in addition to losing the right of marriage

Gay people should also lose the rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, and peaceful protest. Oh, and the right to spend their money where they want.

[dysfunctional press]

273. ...

:eyes:

over-wrought much?

[gollygee]

276. Dismissive of others much?

:eyes:

The ". . . much?" cliche is on the top of the list of overused ones around here lately.

[dysfunctional press]

277. only those that deserve it...

:hi:

[QC]

288. Actually, that smilie is the most intelligent thing that person's ever posted around here.

What would represent snide dismissal in a normal case is actually noteworthy progress in this one!

[Bluebear]

370. In a word, yes. yes, they are.

[bluedawg12]

254. Boycotts are a political tool, long cherished by those without individual power

to affect change. Yes, the word is passed on, that's how it works.

[QC]

261. Boycotts are all well and good, til the queers try to get in on the game.

Then they are bad strategy, an infringement on individual choice, etc.

Interesting how that works, isn't it?

[dysfunctional press]

267. ...

:eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

331. the choice to boycott is still a choice. nt

[gollygee]

208. Oh, good idea. Let's blame them instead.

They're trying to scrape by on waitstaff wages, but let's blame them for the whole thing and put it all on their shoulders.

[dysfunctional press]

229. isn't that kind of what the boycotters are doing...?

the waitstaff would be the first ones affected.

[gollygee]

241. No, the waitstaff would not be the first ones affected

It doesn't work like that - waitstaff laid off, then business loses money. It goes the other way - business loses money and then they might need to lay off waitstaff. And even then, there's no absolute that the waitstaff will be laid off. It depends on what happens in the business.

[dysfunctional press]

265. the biggest part of most waiters pay is tips...

so YES- the waitstaff would be the first ones affected.

[gollygee]

268. You think the waitstaff would be affected by tips before the business owner would be

affected by fewer people eating there?

This woman doesn't get a "get out of jail free" card for having gay employees. She's still responsible for her actions.

[dysfunctional press]

272. definitely. waiters get tips on a daily basis...

the owner doesn't have to pay most bills on a daily basis- and if clientele goes down, so do some of their expenses- such as ordering produce and the like.

[bluedawg12]

244. So all political boycotts are unfair, or just the gays ones?

[dysfunctional press]

264. who said anything about unfair?

besides you? :shrug:

[bluedawg12]

318. Then we agree, boycotts are fair and a legitimate form of protest.

[dysfunctional press]

325. they can be, yes.

but they can also be misguided and ineffectual or knee-jerk reactionary.

for instance- when a boycott does just as much or more damage to members of the group doing the boycotting than it ultimately does to the boycotted- some might consider it to be somewhere in the misguided to stupid range.

[bluedawg12]

326. When it does more damage to the target who goes around squealing to the media

trying to win rw sympathy and telling the same boring,pointless story to any reporter who she can corner, well, that's a sign of effectiveness.

The boycott is not costing us anything.

[dysfunctional press]

329. "The boycott is not costing us anything..."

apparently you're not a member of the waitstaff.

[bluedawg12]

336. Like I said boycotts are a legtimate tool.

[dysfunctional press]

469. they can be.

nt

[mondo joe]

352. People are always hurt by boycotts.

If the criteria for not boycotting is that people are hurt, there would be no boycotts.

[dysfunctional press]

471. it's supposed to be the boycotted that suffer...but there's always collateral damage as well.

one person makes a donation, and it ends up affecting the livelihoods of many others who had nothing to do with it.

but they sure showed her.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

482. I have no problem with it. QuestionAll, I like you and more often than not, agree with you.

I have no personal criticism of you here, but respectfully disagree with your stance.

:hi:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

310. if they can afford to. we should do whats right for our civil rights and our wallets

w. no concern towards the feelings of bigots and those who support their acts

[Renew Deal]

446. And why would they work in a place where their boss obviusly hates them.

How she could possibly make this donation after knowing the people affected is beyond comprehension. It sounds like outright hatred of the people around her.

[TexasObserver]

169. "Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind," the man said.

Here's the lesson: sometimes being a hateful asshole jumps up and bites one in the ass.

To hell with her, and the bigotry she rode in on. Maybe if she had learned the real lessons Jesus taught, she wouldn't be wondering why her life is now a mess.

[Waiting For Everyman]

181. This woman is a fruitcake who bit the hand that fed her and deserves this.

She has gay clientele and gay employees. And she thinks it's unfair that she's being boycotted????

I'm straight and I don't "get" a lot of gay issues, but PULEEZE!

And yes, boycotting is VERY justified as a political action, and in this case, it's not only VALID it's DAMN POETIC JUSTICE too.

What an idiot. And now SHE'S whining about HER actions coming back to HER business which was built on THEIR patronage and support?

I've heard everything now.

[Obamarama]

182. Let her drown in her crocodile tears....

Yes, in today's world, a $100 donation can be the tipping point for your life crumbling around you. Serves you right. I don't care if it was $100 or $100,000. She shouldn't have been supporting a proposal that discriminates against many of her own employees. I have no pity for her, not one ounce.

[roody]

204. Boo hoo. All she had to do was write another check to

challenge Prop 8. No sympathy here.

[sendero]

206. Sometimes...

... facing the consequences of our actions is not pleasant. It's not pleasant for this person, but it is a natural consequence.

You don't piss all over your customers and expect them to patronize you. Perhaps it was a momentary lapse in judgment, perhaps an ingrained belief acted upon. No matter. It is what it is, and while I have a certain amount of sympathy, as I do for many people suffering as a consequence of their own actions, I certainly feel like the universe is working as it should here.

[MadMaddie]

211. I feel nothing for her

If she truelly believed in what she was supporting the she would not have hired Gay employees......

She is a hypocrite and she is all about the money not convictions

She hired specific people because they were good at their jobs.....


You reap what you sow....

[1]

217. "who doesn't want to wear the ribbon!"

[AllentownJake]

219. This is a little different than a normal political campaign

This was an up and down vote over whether the love between two gay citizens equals that of the love between heterosexual citizens.
It was a civil rights issue so these tactics to fight for civil rights are acceptable in my opinion.

I would not feel good if this starts to be adopted as standard operating procedure though in political campaigns between republicans and democrats.

[Crunchy Frog]

222. Heartbreaking story.

A business owner (or very close) decides to donate to push a piece of legislation that directly attacks the rights of members of a large portion of her customer base. She discovers that there are business consequences to this decision.

Is it only in this country that we think business owners have some sort of entitlement to make money, no matter what?

Aw heck! It's just such a sad story that I think I'll go off and cry in a corner anyway. :cry:

[ropi]

224. i don't feel sorry for her one bit.

she donated and suffered the consequences. she's used her money to take away rights from her staff, her customer base, and then cries foul! oh, boo...hoo...hoo...

it's fine to take the glbt dollar, but when it comes to voting for rights she donates against them.

folks like el coyote's owner need to cry. she ruined her own business with her contribution.

[Crunchy Frog]

226. Nobody gets my sarcasm these days.

:cry:

[ropi]

228. oops..

hit the reply under you, crunchy..meant to use it under main thread. mea culpa.

[Liberal_in_LA]

253. I got it!

:hi:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

237. excellent

[La Lioness Priyanka]

234. well deserved. you vote to take away rights, we dont have to support you.

that hundred dollars threw a lot of our lives in to chaos

[SarahB]

242. She supports denying people their rights, yet wants them to spend their money at her restaurant.

She can't have it both ways. I'm sorry, but I have no pity for her.

[NashVegas]

247. Boo Fucking Hoo

Margie made tons of money off of gay people, and had gay people in her employ, and she took the money they made for her and stabbed them in the back.

[bluedawg12]

252. This woman is playing to the right wing -she doesn't WANT gay business

she's blubbering to Lopez at the LA Times and playing victim so that the California right wing, anti-gay, right to lifer, Reagan loving crowd picks up her banner and her cause and does a reverse boycott.

[mondo joe]

256. Someone explain to me: How do you spend money AGAINST your client base and then have

no expectation that the client base won't respond?

[Liberal_in_LA]

283. by the client base not knowing how you spent your money.

[Deep13]

257. People need to realize that political decisions do not occur in a vaccuum.

If she has donated to the Klan, everyone would say she deserves to lose business. This is no different. People cannot be surprised when the bad decisions they make in the voting booth or in campaign donation come back to bite them in the ass. It's like those who voted for Bush but are convinced they are now victims of the tanking economy rather than being responsible for it.

[kwassa]

275. Why don't gay protestors go against more important targets?

Why so much time and energy wasted on one $100 donation? Why not go after the big contributors? What about them?

[johnfunk]

299. Go after them all -- big and small

These are small, prejudiced people whose ignorance, cult behavior and fundamental hatred needs to be exposed.

[mondo joe]

313. Better to be unpredictable and almost random. Let people know that big or small,

their participation in attacking gay families can hurt them.

[bluedawg12]

324. They can't hide behind small donations - makes a lot of sense.

[kwassa]

333. But why so much energy spent on this one restaurant?

Are there other restaurants being protested? Are there other institutions being protested?

I can't figure this obsession with El Coyote.

[mondo joe]

335. It's not the only protest. And it makes its point: don't fuck with us.

I suspect part of the El Coyote impetus is that it had a significant gay clientele. Gays have put a lot of their money into the restaurant only to find the profit from their business was used against them.

That made the hurt more painful.

[Selatius]

327. Gay protesters have gone after mega-churches and the Mormon Church. These were local protesters.

They are going after them all, apparently.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

330. we go after them all. the small ones just feel the impact more. should have thought of that

before they donated for hatred.

[Bluebear]

376. If someone donated $100 to the KKK, would you be in favor of ignoring them?

[el_bryanto]

289. That's kind of sad.

Bryant

[La Lioness Priyanka]

332. no its kind of well deserved. nt

[el_bryanto]

334. I guess I don't agree

I favor people being able to express their opinions even if I disagree with them.

Bryant

[La Lioness Priyanka]

337. i do too, this should apply to gay people as well as bigots. not just the bigots.

she expressed her opinion. we are expressing ours. i dont see why this first amendment right only applies to bigots.

[el_bryanto]

338. What is being done to the woman is intimidation not freedom of speech

In my opinion. There's a difference between saying "Well you're wrong and heres why." and saying "Well you damn well should have kept your mouth shut and here's what we're going to do to you."

Bryant

[La Lioness Priyanka]

339. you think we should spend money on bigots? boycotts, protests and withholding our income

is not intimidation.

death threats, harm to herself and her family would be. also annuling their existing marriage would be intimidation

[el_bryanto]

342. I think you should do whatever you want with your money.

It's your money, do as you like.

Bryant

[La Lioness Priyanka]

346. so how is that intimidation?

[el_bryanto]

349. The intimidation comes in when you organize a boycott

and show up at the restaurant protesting - i don't know if you personally participated in that side of it, but I don't support that.

Bryant

[bluedawg12]

One night of protest -OMG! Carrying signs oh those gay people.

:sarcasm:

Just like others who have carried signs, marched and picketed.

Oh and those terrible gay " throngs met mostly on one night organized for just that purpose." -Box Turtle Bulletin

[La Lioness Priyanka]

367. so we shouldnt do any protesting of bigots in an organized manner. even though she donated to an

organized destruction of our civil rights?

[Bluebear]

383. PS, I don't think people whose marriages are now void give two good shits what you "support".

[gollygee]

477. I am amazed by people saying at DU that protesting is inappropriate.

Nobody should ever protest anything? I don't get this.

And "intimidation" is a strong word and I think is being misused here. That implies that there was some physical threat. She didn't think anyone was going to hurt her or the building. Just that she would lose business that she isn't legally entitled to.

[yardwork]

340. She contributed to taking civil rights away from millions of people. How's that for intimidation?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

343. it doesnt count. only the religous majority can be persecuted. nt

[yardwork]

387. LOL! So I hear.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

400. how dare we organize and boycott and take care of our own? we awful terrible horrible people

[yardwork]

411. Bryant69 aka El_Bryanto has never been on the side of civil rights.

[Ladyhawk]

488. Reminds me of this graphic:

[el_bryanto]

345. I don't support proposition 8

But part of living in a democracy means sharing the public square with people whose opinions you find deplorable. That's the nature of it.

Bryant

[bluedawg12]

348. nothing says democracy more than the right to protest

[el_bryanto]

351. What are you protesting? A fellow citizen having a different opinion than yourself?

She doesn't have the right to disagree with you?

[mondo joe]

358. She still has the right to disagree. And the protestors have the right to protest,

and to let people know where the profits from their spending will go.

[el_bryanto]

361. Protesters certainly have a right to punish people for expressing the wrong opinion

I don't agree with their use of it in this case.

Bryant

[mondo joe]

422. Agree or don't. Your choice.

:shrug:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

362. Her "opinion" contributed to stripping civil rights away from gay people.

[bluedawg12]

366. Some just want gays to sit down and STFU

and play into their right wing allies lies about gay intimidation.

I guess not everyone read about the lies and intimidation before PHate8.

[el_bryanto]

378. I've been apolitical through most of this year other than the presidential election

But I of course condemn any attempt to intimidate people for expressing their political opinions.

Bryant

[bluedawg12]

380. Then you support gays for expressing their political opinion. Great.

[el_bryanto]

386. Exactly - Gays have the right and the duty to oppose Proposition 8

Or the one that was here in my state, for that matter. And they have the right to organize economic punishment for those who supported proposition 8; but I disagree with their choice to do so.

Bryant

[ieoeja]

365. I believe they are protesting her attempt to take away their civil rights.

Not just her expression that they should not have those rights. But a real-life, flesh-and-blood attempt to strip away human rights.

[bluedawg12]

369. Her rights weren't violated, she donated, voted for Hate8 and gave this interview

this very biased reportage just a few days ago, on Dec 14th. Six weeks later she is still carrying on her anti-gay work.

[Bluebear]

375. OK, enough already, welcome to DU, now what's your agenda? "Hmmmm" as you say?

[el_bryanto]

381. I don't have much of an agenda other than promoting my blog I suppose

I used to post here under the name Bryant69.

Bryant

[Bluebear]

385. I was going to suggest starting some lame poll to see what people thought. So you're a Mormon shill,

Basically.

[el_bryanto]

389. OK let me be clear on this

I disagree with my Church's actions in California and I disagree with proposition 8; a similar measure was on the ballot here in Florida. I voted against it.

My position is that the State should get out of the marriage business entirely; if Gays can't be married, than why should straight people? Civil Unions for everybody; and then if you want to be married find a church who will marry you.

Don't make me out to be a bigot because I disagree with you on a free speech issue.

Bryant

[yardwork]

So when will you be starting the effort to remove the state from the marriage business entirely?

While you work on that, I'm not waiting around. The state is very much in the marriage business. I'm not going to try to stop that. Instead, I'm going to continue to ask for the same rights every other human being has in the U.S.

I know that that bothers you. I remember your posting record here on DU very well, Bryant69. I've always thought that your posting name was in homage to Anita Bryant.

[el_bryanto]

399. I'm not working on it

There's too much political hey to be made in the argument for the time being; I wouldn't get very far.

Bryant

[mondo joe]

443. Only a fool could construe this as a free speech issue. She has free speech, and so

do the protestors.

Free speech has never meant freedom from other people using THEIR free speech.

[yardwork]

450. Free speech also does mean that I'm required to spend my money at a bigot's business.

Apparently we're supposed to walk past all the gay-friendly businesses in the world just to spend money at a bigot's restaurant to show how magnanimous we are - and if we don't, then people will withhold our rights because we're being rude.

LOL! You can't make this stuff up. Some of these posters must have been shrub's speechwriters.

[yardwork]

394. I remember you, and your posts on this subject are not surprising.

I used to ask you if your user name was an homage to Anita Bryant, because your posts certainly are aligned with her views on gay rights.

[el_bryanto]

397. Ah? Well than what are my views on Gay rights? if you know them so well

Please elucidate.

[yardwork]

398. Your posts as Bryant69 were never gay friendly.

[el_bryanto]

403. What posts were those?

I don't recall posting anything anti-homosexual.

Bryant

[Name removed]

406. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_bryanto]

410. OK - let me be clear - you are calling me a bigot?

If so you might bring it to the attention of the moderators; i don't have a high post count to protect myself anymore.

Bryant

[yardwork]

412. Do the mods know that you have returned under a new name? Take it up with them.

I'm through bothering with you. You spread discord here and there - that's your world.

[el_bryanto]

413. Typical

I come here because I want to debate and disagree, and sharpen my skills and understanding. Presumably you don't feel the need to do that and settle for hurling accusations and then dismissing those who have the termity to disagree with you.

Bryant

[yardwork]

416. Go cry in a margarita with Margery.

[el_bryanto]

417. Can't do that; Mormons don't drink. n/t

[yardwork]

421. Then why does Margie make all her profits from selling liquor?!!!

If Mormons don't drink, why is it ok for them to make money off selling liquor to queers?

[el_bryanto]

425. I'm not sure

There are Mormons who grow tobacco and work at tobacco plants as well and Mormons aren't allowed to smoke.

But I suppose if I had to answer for a person I never met I'd suggest drinking is legal and whatever my personal beliefs are on the matter, as a society we allow it. Since she runs a restaurant presumably she wants to be successful and part of that is catering to everybody, not just the people that share her opinions on alcohol.

I suppose if I ran a bookstore I'd allow all books on my shelves, even the ones who expressed opinions I found deplorable; the only criteria would be is it going to sell. Hell if you wrote a book I'd stock it presuming it sold.

Bryant

[yardwork]

432. If I owned a bookstore and contributed money to changing a state constitution

to take away civil rights from gay people, I'd expect my customers to be angry.

Margie refused to contribute an equal amount to the efforts to overturn Proposition 8, on the basis that her religion forbids it. Yet she has no problem ignoring her religion's teachings about alcohol.

[el_bryanto]

457. Well i can't really speak for her; anyway off to the dentist so have to pick this uplater. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

415. i am calling you a bigot and a hypocrite. nt

[el_bryanto]

418. On what evidence?

The fact that I oppose punishing this woman for expressing an opinion I find deplorable?

Bryant

[La Lioness Priyanka]

426. that you seem to be opposd to gay people organizing against bigots but seem to support bigots

organizing against gay people.

[el_bryanto]

428. Ah I guess I expressed myself badly

What I am opposed to is people using economic pressure to silence opinions they disagree with. It's a free speech issue to me. I am also opposed to the any attempts to intimidate people who opposed Proposition 8.

Bryant

[La Lioness Priyanka]

429. no you expressed yourself correctly. what you are saying is gays should keep financially supporting

bigoted institutions. horseshit.

[el_bryanto]

430. You are free to do whatever you want

and if the story began and ended with her lamenting that she lost her gay customers, well, I don't think she would have much to complain about. But there were also protests and organization of boycotts which is a little bit different to me.

That said I am rethinking this.

Bryant

[La Lioness Priyanka]

434. which is where i point to your hypocrisy. she was part of an ORGANIZED MOVEMENT to take away our

rights. however you seem to be opposed to our organized movement against them.

hence bigotry+hypocrisy.

[el_bryanto]

435. oh - i might have missed something

what organized movement are you talking about and what position did she hold within it? I mean beyond "people who voted for proposition 8."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

437. where did she donate this money to? to thin air or an organization mobilizing against gay rights?

[yardwork]

442. Margie contributed money to your church's campaign to pass Proposition 8.

She took part in an organized campaign that targeted and eliminated civil rights for gays.

[bluedawg12]

384. The Lopez article three days ago was an appeal to the cultural right

and judging by what I see, it's working.

[yardwork]

408. It brought Bryant69 running back to DU under a new name.

[el_bryanto]

414. I've been back since Saturday actually - and didn't respond to this story initially

Probably i shouldn't have.

Bryant

[yardwork]

390. We're protesting her successful effort to take away civil rights from millions.

I know that you and others would like us to quietly retreat to our little closets and stop making a fuss about having equal rights, but we're not listening to you anymore.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

402. ofcourse she can but she isnt the only one who should be allowed to organize her actions. nt

[yardwork]

388. Nobody is pushing her out of the public square. She's right in the middle of it.

[bluedawg12]

344. The boycott is against her business - don't make her out a martyr.

She's out of town but still giving interviews. :sarcasm:

[el_bryanto]

353. Hmmmmmm. So is the boycott accomplishing anything positive? n/t

[mondo joe]

356. I'd say so. It will give her and others good reason to think twice before attacking us again.

:-)

[el_bryanto]

359. Well exactly

How dare people vote the way you wish they wouldn't.

[bluedawg12]

364. Voting against existing laws to takeaway civil rights

how dare we protest? :sarcasm:

[el_bryanto]

374. Protest in this case is a means to punish people for disagreeing with you

Not just protesting the awful proposition that was passed.

Bryant

[bluedawg12]

379. Now your getting it. Real decisions have real consequences.

PHate8 is not an abstraction.

[el_bryanto]

396. i certainly agree that real decision have real consequences

From a practical standpoint I have to say I don't think you are going to find the consequences of this decision entirely positive.

The Measure of your commitment to freedom of speech is not your willingness to support people you agree with, but your willingness to support people who's opinions you hate.

Bryant

[yardwork]

401. Opinions are different from actions. Nobody is stopping Margery from speaking her opinion.

Nobody is stopping Margery from donating to a cause she believes in. Nobody can stop her former patrons from choosing to spend their money elsewhere, and nobody can stop them from saying why.

The boycott is obviously working since it is causing hysteria among its targets.

[mondo joe]

441. Free speech doesn't mean private citizens can't respond. Gwet a fucking clue.

The principle of free speech is that government will not infringe on free speech.

[yardwork]

451. My primary concern is stopping people from taking away civil rights.

I intend to use my own right to free speech AND my right to protest AND my right to decide how to spend my money to achieve that goal.

Are you seriously advocating that everyone sit back and allow people to vote away civil rights without protesting?

[BeeBee]

456. Did this person attack your family?

She attacked mine.

[yardwork]

404. And?

Why should anyone be nice to somebody who contributed money to take away civil rights from millions of people?

[mondo joe]

439. What do you think protest normally is?

[mondo joe]

420. She can vote however she wants. The protests are about financially

supporting an attack on gay families.

And she is still free to do that. But others are free to protest it.

[gollygee]

479. We have a secret ballot in this country. No one had to know how she voted.

If it were just voting, no one would have known. That's a good example of why we have a secret ballot.

If she actively works to support something, it's harder to keep secret.

[mondo joe]

354. Perhaps as a result others will think twice about attacking gay families.

That seems worthwhile to me.

[Hanse]

311. Yes, she deserves to go out of business.

And I hope she burns in hell.

[Zhade]

312. Ask me to feel bad about homophobes being shamed and losing business...

...and I'll tell you to go fuck yourself.

They reap what they sow when they support making me and mine second-class citizens. No mercy offered or given.

[sledgehammer]

341. Southern Baptists boycotted Disney

Wayne Christoffersen, who is also a manager at El Coyote, is not a Mormon, and he said he doesn't care who marries whom. But he doesn't think it's right that he and other employees at the restaurant are seeing their livelihoods threatened. Should Apple be boycotted by Yes on 8 people, he asked, simply because the computer company donated $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign?

Uhhh...earth to Wayne, that happens all the time. It's called the freedom to choose. And ironically it's the religious zealots who are often the cheerleaders. They're getting a taste of their own medicine.

Here's one of the biggest examples - the Southern Baptists boycotting Disney:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/

"Many Southern Baptists object to Disney's policy of giving health benefits to same-sex partners of employees, "Gay Days" at theme parks, and the release by Disney and its subsidiaries of controversial books and films like "Pulp Fiction" and "Kids."

Of course, the boycott was a total failure so they ended their boycott after a few years (try telling a kid they can never go to Disney, but have to go to church every Sunday!). Disney didn't budge an inch - good for them!

[bluedawg12]

377. Anti-Gay Letter Targets Buffalo Businesses - the rw are still at it!

This just for putting up advertising supporting the Gay Pride Center of Western New York’s discount shopping program.

So were damned if we support business and damned if we don't.


>>Anti-Gay Letter Targets Buffalo Businesses
Jim Burroway
December 15th, 2008
Several Buffalo businesses reported receiving an anonymous anti-gay letter last month. The businesses, located in the trendy Elmwood Village area, are believed to have been targeted because they advertised in a local weekly newspaper supporting the Gay Pride Center of Western New York’s discount shopping program.

A number of businesses received a copy of the letter just before Thanksgiving, which criticized their support for the program and threatening a boycott of their business. The exact contents of the letter hasn’t been released, but the “threatening language” has prompted city officials to launch an investigation. <<
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/

[RoadRage]

347. "Whaaa... I tried to screw my customers, and now they won't come back"..

Seriously, when a large majority of your customers are gay and lesbian, perhaps you should count your blessings... realize how great this group of people are (what with them paying for your livlihood), and you shouldn't try to fiscially impose your personal believes against them. Or, if you DO decide to do that.. don't cry when those people are a bit upset, and no longer support your institution.

Hey - if this woman had any business sense at all.. she'd stop crying and start pandering to the group she donated to. Get on the internet.. advertise to all of the other anti-gay biggots. Hell, the stupid bill passed... so more then 50% should be happy to show up and support her, right?

People can support whatever they want. That includes political agendas as well as private institutions. She supported her cause, and now her former customers are supporing theirs. Deal with it lady.

[Bluebear]

371. Cry me a fucking river, Margie.

That is all.

[lies and propaganda]

382. LOVE IT.

Its just as hard for gay people that you helped to make second class citizens.. thems the breaks.

[Taverner]

391. HA HA

[JNelson6563]

393. Boo-hoo!

I was simply trying to help impose my bigoted narrow minded view on the population of my state! Now people are being mean to me!!

Fundies and such need to realize most sins are paid for in this life (IMO the only one there is).

Julie

[Political Heretic]

405. Um... good? This report is dripping with biased language trying to pull on the heartstrings.

Basically, a business owner opposed equal rights for all Americans, and in response her business was boycotted, and people used their first amendment rights to protest and speak out.....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

409. no shit. next we will see a report about the terrible anguish hitler faced before he shot himself.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

447. You broke Godwin's Law.

To which I say -- fuck Godwin's Law. You're spot on.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

449. kisses

muah!

[QC]

419. All that manipulative talk of mobs and oppression certainly worked on some people here.

Apparently bigots have an absolute right to everyone's business.

No, I don't understand it either.

[yardwork]

423. Nah, they already believed that before this ever happened.

We already knew that some folks want queers to stay in the closet and stfu. Now they're getting antsy because we're making a lot of noise and we're not spending money the way we're supposed to either.

How dare gay people withhold their money from businesses who oppose gay rights?!! The humanity!

[QC]

424. Yeah, there's a little group of posters here that loves to go to gay-related threads

and play the "contrarian."

Ever notice that?

Several of them have clocked in here, not surprisingly. You can set your watch by them.

[yardwork]

433. They only help our cause by making their foolishness so obvious.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

427. next we may demand equal rights for votes. who knows where this could end.

[NorthernSpy]

452. if I may interrupt the Two-Minute Hate for a sec...

I'd like to point out that people are trying to make progress on this issue in states other than California. In Maine, there will likely be a referendum on SSM in 2009. The stories about religious people being intimidated and losing their family businesses will make explosive propaganda -- for the other side.


:nuke:


So yeah -- enjoy your destructive rage. And thanks for all the fallout.


:eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

453. how is this destructive rage? this is called organized boycotts.

:eyes:

if people hurt her physically: that would be destructive rage

[NorthernSpy]

454. And in my post, I answered that question...

Proof that you read only the title.


Figures.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

458. no you didnt. i read your post. people may misrepresent anything we do.

we cannot let right wing journalists bully us into fear.

[NorthernSpy]

460. Tell you what: don't worry about it. Enjoy your echo chamber...

And then next year, you can be dumbfounded all over again when SSM goes down to defeat in yet another blue state.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

461. enjoy your fear as you realize that the organized party wins. not the nicer one. we lost in CA

because we werent organized and lacked power. not because we organized boycotts. if only we were that motivated BEFORE losing

[mondo joe]

481. Let us know when you really give a shit, instead of just wanting to nedle GLBT people.

Thanks!

[NorthernSpy]

487. When did I nedle you?

I don't remember it.


:shrug:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

462. Because keeping silent worked so well in the past.

:eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

463. yeah. we lost california because of the boycotts and display of muscle.

:hi:

[yardwork]

464. Good try at intimidation. Try this instead - people are learning that there are consequences

to denying civil rights to minorities.

Maybe business owners and religious denominations will think twice about waging bigoted campaigns against gay people. Maybe some people will refrain from funding those bigoted campaigns now that they know they will be asked to explain their donations.

As for "explosive propaganda" - don't worry, the right-wing always takes care of that by themselves. They just make stuff up. Being "nice" didn't do gay people any good in California, Florida, Arkansas, Arizona, or the 26 other states that have passed anti-gay constitutional amendments and legislation. Being nice is over now.

P.S. Our "destructive rage" will last longer than two minutes. It will last until we have equal rights. Who will blink first? How much does it matter to you?

[BeeBee]

472. Don't give me this bullshit about "destructive rage."

This woman personally attacked my family. What would you do if it was your family?

[Dragonfli]

455. A bigot is a bigot, I would boycott anyone who supports hate legislation

She donated to a hate cause and deserves no patronage from those she hates.
Very simple really.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

459. thank you. nt

[Political Heretic]

466. I want you to look at all the deliberatey emotioanlly charged language used in this article -

And GET that you are being manipulated.

She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of "for" and "against" donors. And El Coyote became a target.

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting "shame on you" at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob. (fifty bucks says it was less that fifty people)

The mob left, but so did the customers.

Sections of the restaurant have been closed, a manager told me Friday during a very quiet lunch hour. Some of the 89 employees, many of them gay, have had their hours cut, and layoffs are looming. And Christoffersen, who has taken a voluntary leave of absence, is wondering whether she'll ever again be able to work at the restaurant, which opened in 1931 (at 1st and La Brea) and is owned by her 92-year-old mother. (aaaawwwwwwwwww!)

"It's been so hard," she said, breaking down again.

Margie tried to smooth things over last month by inviting gay clients to a free lunch to talk it over, but she left in tears when asked if she would write a check to the group challenging Prop. 8.


Give me a fucking break. You do realize this could have been written in a more neutral way, right?

But of course, then that would be "news" and not tabloid sensationalism.

[QC]

476. It sure worked on a lot of people here. n/t

[krispos42]

467. So she worked around gays, employed them, listened to their stories...

...of love and heartbreak, of being the recipient of hatred from family and strangers for their sexuality, the inequalities of the laws...


...and still gave money to this organization?


She was looking into the eyes of gay people every single day, and she, a woman, voted against equality before the law?

So much for the law of contagion.


I have no sympathy. The restraunt will close, other business will pick up the slack, the employees will get new jobs, and one less conservative will have the money available to move this country to the Reich Wing.

[JI7]

480. i guess she just wanted their money

at first i thought the article was going to say that she just gave money to her church or something else without knowing it was specifically towards an anti gay thing.

but then it goes on to talk about how she does support anti gay laws and starts crying when asked if she would support something in support of gay rights ?

[Political Heretic]

470. "It's always better when the oppressed don't fight back, isn't it? "

Tom Zaric was right.

[David Zephyr]

478. Fuck her and the shithouse on Beverly Blvd.

.

[Occam Bandage]

485. She supported throwing other lives in turmoil, so she gets what she deserves. nt

[Phillycat]

486. I can't seem to muster a single ounce of sympathy for her.

You put hate out into the world, you get hate back.